From
http://www.4woman.gov/faq/smoking.htm#8
No, it's never too late to quit. Quit smoking now to start feeling these benefits.
20 minutes after quitting:
Your blood pressure drops back to normal.
The temperature in your hands and feet returns to normal.
8 hours after quitting:
The carbon monoxide (a gas that can be toxic) in your blood drops to normal.
24 hours after quitting:
Your chance of having a heart attack goes down.
2 days after quitting:
You can taste and smell things better.
2 weeks to 3 months after quitting:
You have better blood flow.
Your lungs are working better.
1 to 9 months after quitting:
Coughing, sinus congestion, fatigue, and shortness of breath decrease.
Your lungs start to function better, lowering your risk of lung infections.
1 year after quitting:
You reduce your risk for heart disease by half.
5 to 15 years after quitting:
Your risk of having a stroke is the same as someone who never smoked.
10 years after quitting:
Your risk of lung cancer is nearly the same as someone who never smoked.
Your risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, and pancreas also decrease.
15 years after quitting:
Your risk of heart disease is now the same as someone who has never smoked.
From http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayart ... le905.html
After you quit...
Within 20 minutes : Your blood pressure and pulse rate drop to normal. Body temperature of hands and feet increases to normal.
Within 8 hours : Carbon monoxide level in the blood drops to normal and oxygen levels in blood rise to normal. Smoker's breath disappears.
Within 24 hours : Chance of heart attack decreases.
Within 48 hours : Nerve endings start regrowing. Ability to taste and smell enhances.
Within three days : You'll breathe easier.
Within two weeks to three months : Circulation improves. Walking becomes easier. Lung function increases up to 30%.
Within one to nine months : You'll cough less. Sinus congestion and shortness of breath decrease. The cilia that sweep debris from your lungs will grow back. You'll feel more energetic.
Within one year : Excess risk of coronary heart disease is half that of a smoker.
Within two years : Your heart attack risk drops to near normal.
Within five years : Lung cancer death rate for average former smoker (of one pack a day) decreases by almost half. Stroke risk is reduced to that of a nonsmoker five to 15 years after quitting. Risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, and esophagus is half that of a smoker's.
Within 10 years : Lung cancer death rate is similar to that of a nonsmoker's. Precancerous cells are replaced. Risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, and pancreas decreases.
Within 15 years : Risk of coronary heart disease is that of a nonsmoker's.
From http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/afterqu ... itting.htm
What Are The Benefits of Quitting Tobacco?
What happens inside our bodies when we quit tobacco? Have all of the years of smoking or chewing caused too much damage for quitting to be of any benefit? Not at all. The human body is amazingly resilent, and will begin the healing process within 20 minutes of quitting. The health improvements go on for years.
*************************************************
So basically Wayne, I guess you're saying that once you take that first puff you might as well go ahead and smoke three packs a day and never worry about quitting. Because that initial exposure is going to kill you no matter what you do. :roll: :roll: :roll:
http://www.4woman.gov/faq/smoking.htm#8
No, it's never too late to quit. Quit smoking now to start feeling these benefits.
20 minutes after quitting:
Your blood pressure drops back to normal.
The temperature in your hands and feet returns to normal.
8 hours after quitting:
The carbon monoxide (a gas that can be toxic) in your blood drops to normal.
24 hours after quitting:
Your chance of having a heart attack goes down.
2 days after quitting:
You can taste and smell things better.
2 weeks to 3 months after quitting:
You have better blood flow.
Your lungs are working better.
1 to 9 months after quitting:
Coughing, sinus congestion, fatigue, and shortness of breath decrease.
Your lungs start to function better, lowering your risk of lung infections.
1 year after quitting:
You reduce your risk for heart disease by half.
5 to 15 years after quitting:
Your risk of having a stroke is the same as someone who never smoked.
10 years after quitting:
Your risk of lung cancer is nearly the same as someone who never smoked.
Your risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, and pancreas also decrease.
15 years after quitting:
Your risk of heart disease is now the same as someone who has never smoked.
From http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayart ... le905.html
After you quit...
Within 20 minutes : Your blood pressure and pulse rate drop to normal. Body temperature of hands and feet increases to normal.
Within 8 hours : Carbon monoxide level in the blood drops to normal and oxygen levels in blood rise to normal. Smoker's breath disappears.
Within 24 hours : Chance of heart attack decreases.
Within 48 hours : Nerve endings start regrowing. Ability to taste and smell enhances.
Within three days : You'll breathe easier.
Within two weeks to three months : Circulation improves. Walking becomes easier. Lung function increases up to 30%.
Within one to nine months : You'll cough less. Sinus congestion and shortness of breath decrease. The cilia that sweep debris from your lungs will grow back. You'll feel more energetic.
Within one year : Excess risk of coronary heart disease is half that of a smoker.
Within two years : Your heart attack risk drops to near normal.
Within five years : Lung cancer death rate for average former smoker (of one pack a day) decreases by almost half. Stroke risk is reduced to that of a nonsmoker five to 15 years after quitting. Risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, and esophagus is half that of a smoker's.
Within 10 years : Lung cancer death rate is similar to that of a nonsmoker's. Precancerous cells are replaced. Risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, and pancreas decreases.
Within 15 years : Risk of coronary heart disease is that of a nonsmoker's.
From http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/afterqu ... itting.htm
What Are The Benefits of Quitting Tobacco?
What happens inside our bodies when we quit tobacco? Have all of the years of smoking or chewing caused too much damage for quitting to be of any benefit? Not at all. The human body is amazingly resilent, and will begin the healing process within 20 minutes of quitting. The health improvements go on for years.
*************************************************
So basically Wayne, I guess you're saying that once you take that first puff you might as well go ahead and smoke three packs a day and never worry about quitting. Because that initial exposure is going to kill you no matter what you do. :roll: :roll: :roll:
Peter, thank you for the information. Wayne, this isn't some kind of hockey game where we're keeping score. I asked Peter to provide me with some information.
Then the literature hasn't studied shipping and handling stress. Peter, can you explain why I had higher mortalities with net caught exporters than with non-net caught exporters?
Peter, so there are NO studies following the effects of cyanide caught fish past a 2.5 week time period? Are the concentrations you're talking about concentrations in the bottle or the diluted concentration once the cyanide hits the water? Are you saying that every single fish caught with cyanide will die within a few weeks. Every single one? I'm looking for literature that states that every single fish captured with dies after being held for x amount of time. Your information is very interesting and I am not refuting it. But it isn't exactly what I'm looking for.
[/quote]
Then the literature hasn't studied shipping and handling stress. Peter, can you explain why I had higher mortalities with net caught exporters than with non-net caught exporters?
Peter, so there are NO studies following the effects of cyanide caught fish past a 2.5 week time period? Are the concentrations you're talking about concentrations in the bottle or the diluted concentration once the cyanide hits the water? Are you saying that every single fish caught with cyanide will die within a few weeks. Every single one? I'm looking for literature that states that every single fish captured with dies after being held for x amount of time. Your information is very interesting and I am not refuting it. But it isn't exactly what I'm looking for.
[/quote]
Mary, The papers concerning longer term mortality from shipping and handling mostly pertain to freshwater species (like salmon, trout, guppies and tiger barbs). If we accept that the fish you purchased were net-caught, then we can assume that the mortalities you experienced were not from cyanide, but from stress (which reduces the immune system and makes fish more susceptible to disease), starvation, and other factors like the Bohr and Root effects induced by low pH and higher levels of dissolved carbon dioxide. These are the questions I am now trying to address with research being conducted with Ferdinand in the Philippines.
I am not saying that every fish caught with cyanide dies withing a few weeks. Just because a small fraction of fish, which may have been caught with cyanide, survive does not justify the use of cyanide to capture either marine aquarium fish or food fish. We need to stop cyanide fishing not encourange it to continue.
There is a good paper on the longer-term lethality to clown fish from low pH, high ammonia, and carbon dioxide concentrations under controlled conditions simulating the conditions in sealed plastic bags.
Chow, P.S., T. W. Chen, and L.H. Teo. 1994. Physiological responses of the common clownfish, Amphiprion ocellaris (Cuvier), to factors related to packing and long-distance transport by air. Aquaculture 127: 347-361.
I am not saying that every fish caught with cyanide dies withing a few weeks. Just because a small fraction of fish, which may have been caught with cyanide, survive does not justify the use of cyanide to capture either marine aquarium fish or food fish. We need to stop cyanide fishing not encourange it to continue.
There is a good paper on the longer-term lethality to clown fish from low pH, high ammonia, and carbon dioxide concentrations under controlled conditions simulating the conditions in sealed plastic bags.
Chow, P.S., T. W. Chen, and L.H. Teo. 1994. Physiological responses of the common clownfish, Amphiprion ocellaris (Cuvier), to factors related to packing and long-distance transport by air. Aquaculture 127: 347-361.
Thank you Peter for admitting that not all fish exposed to cyanide are automatically "dead fish swimming". I hope to god you are not thinking that I am justifying the use of cyanide though. Because I unequivocally am NOT. I was making a point to Kalk- refuting his argument that cyanide use can't exist in this trade because they would all die. It's simply not true.
This seems like a good place to sum up my comments. I'm putting them in bold so people who are scanning through this sea of text can see them clearly and that the point doesn't get lost.
Cyanide use is bad. It does not kill every fish it comes into contact with, but it does kill the reefs. A hobbyist can purchase a clown trigger that was caught with cyanide and that fish can live for years. The destruction is on the reefs- far from hobbyist's eyes. For this reason, the use of cyanide should be eradicated. Even if every single fish captured with cyanide lived a long healthy life in an aquarium, that still would not justify the use of it.
I have always said you can have healthy cyanide caught fish, but not healthy reefs where cyanide is used. In fact, that statement was included in my personal diatribes about cyanide use on the Reefsource site. I've said it during presentations I've given. I've also said it many times in this and other forums over the years. This is not some new stance I've taken since I quit being net caught only. Why this comment is only now catching attention baffles me.
Thank you for printing your comments in BOLD as it is now apparent to me what you mean.
You are attempting to justify your firms's carrying fish from the Philippines and Indonesia where the use of cyanide is rampant.
We both know cyanide kills fish as well as all the critters that live in the reef and the reef itself.
Nothing justifies its use.
Nothing justifies the sale of cyanide caught fish.
PERIOD
You are attempting to justify your firms's carrying fish from the Philippines and Indonesia where the use of cyanide is rampant.
We both know cyanide kills fish as well as all the critters that live in the reef and the reef itself.
Nothing justifies its use.
Nothing justifies the sale of cyanide caught fish.
PERIOD
Cyanide has been rampant for how many years now? Are you implying ALL the fish that have lived to a ripe old age in aquaria since cyanide use begun were non cyanided fish in the first place? Even when at the time, all clown triggers were caught with juice (before trainings there) that consumers were able to purchase? Really? Sounds like cyanide was never a problem then, for aquarists or this side of the pond. This is were science has proved the rift between human experience and controlled lab experiments.
Yeah Wayne, that's exactly what I'm doing- NOT. If I want to do something in my business, I don't have to justify it to anyone. Especially you. I was just stating a fact- one that Peter actually ended up agreeing with (but I notice you don't mention that). I've dissed you time and time again so you are making a lame attempt at trying to "get me back". You're going to need to be a little more clever.
Fun quote from Wayne's World:
Garth Algar: Benjamin is nobody's friend. If Benjamin were an ice cream flavor, he'd be pralines and dick.
Hmm very disturbing thread.
I just have one question of you, Mary...
Given some of your statements in this thread, shall I assume that some of the fish you are currently importing, to your knowledge, are caught with cyanide?
I do realize that in the past you had no "guarantee" of net caught fish but it was my understanding that you made a stringent effort to procure fish that were net caught, but now you have relaxed your standards/criteria?
I realize that you also get from net-caught only sources/countries, but as it pertains to PI and Indo fishes, what has changed?
Inquiring customers want to know
I just have one question of you, Mary...
Given some of your statements in this thread, shall I assume that some of the fish you are currently importing, to your knowledge, are caught with cyanide?
I do realize that in the past you had no "guarantee" of net caught fish but it was my understanding that you made a stringent effort to procure fish that were net caught, but now you have relaxed your standards/criteria?
I realize that you also get from net-caught only sources/countries, but as it pertains to PI and Indo fishes, what has changed?
Inquiring customers want to know
I think you all have illustrated my point quite well . On one hand we have the scientists telling us that x number of fish die during importation .........and on the other hand we have Actual wholesalers experiencing something quite different. Every wholesaler knows that known cyanide fish have lower death rates {blue tangs Triggers Majestic and Blue face etc. } then non traditional cyanide fish like cardinals and mandarins .....Yet the scientists want us to believe their studies claiming that cyanide fish almost always die from the exposure. Someone forgot to tell the fish ! My point is that it seems that one of the sides must be 100 percent wrong? Which is it? The fish or the scientists? Why is it that we have scientists telling importers what their DOA rates are? Why do we have scientists telling the fish what amount of cyanide they experience in cyanide collection? It is the fish that can best gauge its own tolerance to cyanide .....not some scientific estimate by a scientist with a clip board. And its the importers that know what the current DOA rates are on incoming fish . Second hand information from competing businesses is not useful information. If Mary tells the scientist that she experiences 8% DOA but that Kalkbreath experiences 60% DOA........then Kalkbreath tells the scientist that his DOA rates are 10% , but that marys DOA rate is 80%........the scientist can conclude that the average DOA between the TWO is about 40% . !!! When in fact its 9 percent. Thats the kind of data that non industry types like to include in their studys. There is not enough mark up for the industry to survive on a 40% DOA at import. But dont let that get in the way of the scientists.....nor that Known cyanide fish dont really show signs of the exposure? Maybe its because these fish have never really been near any poison
Stop jumping on Mary.....Even I understand her point. Nothings 100 percent! Mary is honest enough to admit that.....thats a respectfull trait. It no different then your position as a store owner.....You dont really know do you? It can very easily be that one of the fish in your shop is tainted. Mary has pointed that out to you! That does not mean your lowering your standards . It just means your sytem is not bullet proof, and niether is Marys....................Now let me get back to Marys attack on me :wink:JennM":28z3jq7n said:Hmm very disturbing thread.
I just have one question of you, Mary...
Given some of your statements in this thread, shall I assume that some of the fish you are currently importing, to your knowledge, are caught with cyanide?
I do realize that in the past you had no "guarantee" of net caught fish but it was my understanding that you made a stringent effort to procure fish that were net caught, but now you have relaxed your standards/criteria?
I realize that you also get from net-caught only sources/countries, but as it pertains to PI and Indo fishes, what has changed?
Inquiring customers want to know
I never said that the system was bulletproof... we've gone on ad-infinitum about that in other threads...
I simply asked because Mary's stance seems to have changed somewhat, and I would like some clarification.
I realize that there was never a guarantee, but I found the odds to be favourable that her fish were all net-caught. That is also how I represent fishes in my store. I can differentiate between captive raised, net-caught only countries, and then the high-risk fishes, from sources believed to be net-caught (with no express guarantee). Now even though her feelings about cyanide use remain consistent, her business practices may or may not have changed in this regard, and I simply would like a clarification, lest I misconstrue or misinterpret her remarks.
That's fair game, not an attack and not inflammatory - nor is it meant to be.
I'm sure Mary can answer for herself, so I will patiently and respectfully await her reply.
Jenn
I simply asked because Mary's stance seems to have changed somewhat, and I would like some clarification.
I realize that there was never a guarantee, but I found the odds to be favourable that her fish were all net-caught. That is also how I represent fishes in my store. I can differentiate between captive raised, net-caught only countries, and then the high-risk fishes, from sources believed to be net-caught (with no express guarantee). Now even though her feelings about cyanide use remain consistent, her business practices may or may not have changed in this regard, and I simply would like a clarification, lest I misconstrue or misinterpret her remarks.
That's fair game, not an attack and not inflammatory - nor is it meant to be.
I'm sure Mary can answer for herself, so I will patiently and respectfully await her reply.
Jenn
Speaking as a scientist about a scientific paper. Lets see what mortality was experienced with clownfish that were not exposed to cyanide but were exposed to conditions known to occur in plastic bags.
Chow et al. (1994) in the citation posted earlier did the following:
A total of 60 clownfish (Amphiprion ocellaris) were packed individually in 10 X 26 cm polyethylene bags, each containing 140 ml of freshly filtered seawater and later filled up with industrial purified oxygen for the remaining 3/4 volume of the bag. All the bags were placed in a Lab-line environmental chamber that was set at 25 degrees Centrigrade. Five bags were taken out at 4-hourly intervals during the 48-h experimental period. Water samples were analyzed for pH, total dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2) and total dissolved ammonia (NH3). The condition of each fish and the mortality was also noted.
RESULTS
Water pH dropped from 8.45 to 7.19 during the first 12 hours. Subsequently the changes were less rapid. It was 6.97 at 48 hours compared to 8.29 of blank water (bag sealed with no clownfish). The hydrogen ion concentration [H+] in the test bags with a single clownfish peaked at 24 hour from an initial concentration of 3.6 nanoMolar until it reached 107 nanoMolar at the end of 48 hours. (This means that the hydrogen ion concentration increased as the pH decreased over 48 hours). Pearson's correlation analysis revealed strong relationships of [H+] over time, total dissolved CO2 and NH3 (correlation coefficient r=0.54, 0.59, and 0.62 respectively P<0.01). [This means that the concentrations of hydrogen ion, dissolved carbon dioxide (present as carbonic acid), and total dissolved ammonia all increased and were positively correlated over the 48 hour test period.]
I am skipping discussion about the % unioninized and % ionized ammonia ...
FISH APPEARANCE AND MORTALITY
During the initial hours, most fish were agitated and active. As time progressed, they became less active and paler in colour. The first death was observed at the 28th hour. One death was recorded at each of the three subsequent random samplings and two at the end of the experiment. The paper states that the total mortality was 10%. Terry's review paper cites this percentage (10%).
Lets examine this assertion. There were 60 test fish in the experiment in separate bags. There were 5 test bags opened at the end of each 4 hour period. The way I would interpret the results were that there was 0% mortality for each test period for 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 hours (since 5 out of 5 fish in each test group lived for each period cited). There was 20% mortality at 28, 32, 36, and 40 hours (since for each test group there was 1 out of 5 fish dead for each of the just cited time periods). For the 48 hour time period the mortality was 40% mortaliy (since 2 out of 5 fish were dead when the final 5 bags were opened at the end of 48 hours).
My point is that the paper incorrectly cited the mortality based on the fact that 6 out of 60 fish died. If all fish had been held in bags for 48 hours the mortality would have been 40% not 10% (based on the results of the last 5 bags).
So, even scientists can misrepresent data. Kalk criticised scientists (me) for using the best information available. I use the present scientific information to further support my earlier assertions that mortality at each of the chain of custody is on average 30% (from collector, exporter, importer, to retailer) and that the cumulative mortality from reefs to retailers is over 80% (Rubec 1986). Kalk lets see you refute these assertions.
Chow et al. (1994) in the citation posted earlier did the following:
A total of 60 clownfish (Amphiprion ocellaris) were packed individually in 10 X 26 cm polyethylene bags, each containing 140 ml of freshly filtered seawater and later filled up with industrial purified oxygen for the remaining 3/4 volume of the bag. All the bags were placed in a Lab-line environmental chamber that was set at 25 degrees Centrigrade. Five bags were taken out at 4-hourly intervals during the 48-h experimental period. Water samples were analyzed for pH, total dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2) and total dissolved ammonia (NH3). The condition of each fish and the mortality was also noted.
RESULTS
Water pH dropped from 8.45 to 7.19 during the first 12 hours. Subsequently the changes were less rapid. It was 6.97 at 48 hours compared to 8.29 of blank water (bag sealed with no clownfish). The hydrogen ion concentration [H+] in the test bags with a single clownfish peaked at 24 hour from an initial concentration of 3.6 nanoMolar until it reached 107 nanoMolar at the end of 48 hours. (This means that the hydrogen ion concentration increased as the pH decreased over 48 hours). Pearson's correlation analysis revealed strong relationships of [H+] over time, total dissolved CO2 and NH3 (correlation coefficient r=0.54, 0.59, and 0.62 respectively P<0.01). [This means that the concentrations of hydrogen ion, dissolved carbon dioxide (present as carbonic acid), and total dissolved ammonia all increased and were positively correlated over the 48 hour test period.]
I am skipping discussion about the % unioninized and % ionized ammonia ...
FISH APPEARANCE AND MORTALITY
During the initial hours, most fish were agitated and active. As time progressed, they became less active and paler in colour. The first death was observed at the 28th hour. One death was recorded at each of the three subsequent random samplings and two at the end of the experiment. The paper states that the total mortality was 10%. Terry's review paper cites this percentage (10%).
Lets examine this assertion. There were 60 test fish in the experiment in separate bags. There were 5 test bags opened at the end of each 4 hour period. The way I would interpret the results were that there was 0% mortality for each test period for 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 hours (since 5 out of 5 fish in each test group lived for each period cited). There was 20% mortality at 28, 32, 36, and 40 hours (since for each test group there was 1 out of 5 fish dead for each of the just cited time periods). For the 48 hour time period the mortality was 40% mortaliy (since 2 out of 5 fish were dead when the final 5 bags were opened at the end of 48 hours).
My point is that the paper incorrectly cited the mortality based on the fact that 6 out of 60 fish died. If all fish had been held in bags for 48 hours the mortality would have been 40% not 10% (based on the results of the last 5 bags).
So, even scientists can misrepresent data. Kalk criticised scientists (me) for using the best information available. I use the present scientific information to further support my earlier assertions that mortality at each of the chain of custody is on average 30% (from collector, exporter, importer, to retailer) and that the cumulative mortality from reefs to retailers is over 80% (Rubec 1986). Kalk lets see you refute these assertions.
What you dont include in your tests , is that there are many things which go into exporting fish successfully. Did you get the fish ready for export? Did you use aged water ..what kind of salt was used? the buffer strenth varies from brand to brand...Were the fish kept in the dark during the duration? What was the temp of the water the fish were bagged in , what was the holding temp for the twelve hour leading up to the shipping of the fish ? ....I can go on and on .....You as a scientist .......dont ship fish as well as someone with years of experience shipping fish .......you dont understand the little things that effect the health of the fish before and during shipping. If you want real word data......you need to monitor the guys that actually ship fish for a living. Furthermore have you taken into account that there is no way to make money if 40% of the fish are consistently landing dead. Also did you ever consider that if fifty to seventy percent of the fish are dying before they can be sold{like you suspect}........that this hobby is only consuming thirty percent of the total fish recorded as being imported. Do you really think that the hobbyists are only purchasing one to two million fish a year? Or that the retailers are selling so few fish? If only thirty percent of the fish imported are making it into the dealers tanks ....after you subtract an aditional ten to twenty percent to account for the jumpers . fighters and swallowers ..that all LFS experience in the display tanks .......there would only be ten percent of the fish actually making it into the customer tanks?
JennM":3bkk4wxt said:Hmm very disturbing thread.
I just have one question of you, Mary...
Given some of your statements in this thread, shall I assume that some of the fish you are currently importing, to your knowledge, are caught with cyanide?
I do realize that in the past you had no "guarantee" of net caught fish but it was my understanding that you made a stringent effort to procure fish that were net caught, but now you have relaxed your standards/criteria?
I realize that you also get from net-caught only sources/countries, but as it pertains to PI and Indo fishes, what has changed?
Inquiring customers want to know
We all want to know why she has changed her business practices. Thanks for also sharing your concern.
Dr. Rubec when you posted
" I use the present scientific information to further support my earlier assertions that mortality at each of the chain of custody is on average 30% (from collector, exporter, importer, to retailer) and that the cumulative mortality from reefs to retailers is over 80% (Rubec 1986)."
I take it that this is before cyanide is added to the equation. Am I correct?
Wayne
Wayne, My papers in 1986, 1987, and Rubec and Soundararajan (1991) simply stated that my estimate of mortality at each step of the chain was 30% and that the cumulative mortality through the chain of custody was over 80%. This would be with cyanide-caught fish included. In Rubec et al. (2001) I discussed possible causes of the morality including cyanide, stress, poor water-quality like ammonia etc.
If a controlled experiment (Chow et al. 1994) can show that the mortality at different time periods was 20% and that the mortality at 48 hours was 40% without cyanide, then it supports the assertion that mortalities were higher with cyanide as another factor being included.
Mary asked me for scientific evidence of long-term scientific studies with fish exposed to cyanide. I have previously discussed the mortality study by Hall and Bellwood (1995) that determined the delayed mortality to damselfish over a 13 day period for cyanide-alone (37.5 %), stress-alone (25%), starvation-alone (0%), CN+stress (25%), CN+starvation (33.3%), stress+starvation (66.7%), and CN+stress+starvation (41.7%). It should be noted that these results pertain to the % mortality for separate test groups of damsels exposed to each condition and the conditions listed in combination. Hence, they are not additive (do not total 100%). They support the idea that cyanide in combination with the other factors increased the mortality. It should also be noted that stress-alone and stress+stravation are associated with high mortality without the fish having been exposed to cyanide.
My main point is that I expect the marine aquarium trade to stop supporting collection of fish with cyanide, and I want to see improvements in the way fish are handled and shipped to reduce the other potential causes of mortality. As a scientist, an environmentalist, and a marine hobbyist I want the trade to change to protect and conserve coral reefs, and to benefit sustainability of the trade.
Peter Rubec
If a controlled experiment (Chow et al. 1994) can show that the mortality at different time periods was 20% and that the mortality at 48 hours was 40% without cyanide, then it supports the assertion that mortalities were higher with cyanide as another factor being included.
Mary asked me for scientific evidence of long-term scientific studies with fish exposed to cyanide. I have previously discussed the mortality study by Hall and Bellwood (1995) that determined the delayed mortality to damselfish over a 13 day period for cyanide-alone (37.5 %), stress-alone (25%), starvation-alone (0%), CN+stress (25%), CN+starvation (33.3%), stress+starvation (66.7%), and CN+stress+starvation (41.7%). It should be noted that these results pertain to the % mortality for separate test groups of damsels exposed to each condition and the conditions listed in combination. Hence, they are not additive (do not total 100%). They support the idea that cyanide in combination with the other factors increased the mortality. It should also be noted that stress-alone and stress+stravation are associated with high mortality without the fish having been exposed to cyanide.
My main point is that I expect the marine aquarium trade to stop supporting collection of fish with cyanide, and I want to see improvements in the way fish are handled and shipped to reduce the other potential causes of mortality. As a scientist, an environmentalist, and a marine hobbyist I want the trade to change to protect and conserve coral reefs, and to benefit sustainability of the trade.
Peter Rubec
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
