Global Warming Redux

[Guest rattler]

Is New York continuing to dump their garbage scows at sea?

Evidently not. but closer to home cities routinely discharge their raw sewage into the ocean and other waterways.

Canada Takes Crap for Flushing Raw Sewage into the Ocean

As B.C. Prepares for 2010 Olympics, Victoria Continues Sending Sewage to Sea

By Larry West, About.com

Canada flushes some 200 billion liters of raw sewage directly into natural waterways every year, from the St. Lawrence River to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Pacific Ocean. That’s only a fraction of the three trillion liters of sewage Canadians produce annually—about 6 percent, in fact—but it’s still enough to fill more than 40,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

A Dangerous Brew

According to Macleans, Canada’s leading news magazine, the sewage is a mixture of water, human waste, microorganisms, toxic chemicals, heavy metals, excreted pharmaceuticals and, potentially, pathogens such as cholera, typhoid and hepatitis B.

"It is widely recognized that inadequate or no waste water treatment have negative impact on aquatic life, human uses of water, fisheries and human health,” Environment Canada told Macleans. “Therefore it is unacceptable and shortsighted not to maintain and upgrade infrastructure."

Canadian Coastal Cities Dump Raw Sewage in the Ocean

A number of municipalities throughout Canada persist in this practice that the Sierra Legal Defence Fund calls a “national disgrace,” particularly coastal cities where for many years the sewage could be dumped in open water and remain out of sight and out of mind for many people.

Unlike the European Union and the United States, Canada has no national standards for sewage treatment that cities and towns must follow. So while some Canadian cities have top-notch sewage treatment facilities, others have none.

Even Montreal, a seemingly world-class city, pumps 900 billion liters of sewage into the St. Lawrence River. Most of it receives primary treatment, which reduces the number of solids somewhat by means of a settling process, but 3.6 billion liters of that total enters the river as untreated raw sewage.

Victoria Proud of Pollution

According to many environmentalists, however, the worst offender in the Canadian landscape is Victoria, the picturesque provincial capital of British Columbia. Not only does Victoria pump its raw sewage directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, an arm of the Pacific Ocean, but city officials also claim they are doing the “right and responsible thing” for their community and the environment. They see no reason to change.

Not all of their constituents agree.

A group of activists called People Opposed to Outfall Pollution (POOP) has taken a lighthearted approach to a serious issue, poking fun at city officials with bathroom humor and using clever guerilla marketing tactics to focus a firestorm of embarrassing international media attention on Victoria’s toilet habits.

Mr. Floatie Creates a Stink Over Raw Sewage

One POOP member, James Skwarok, 35, dresses up as Mr. Floatie, a cheerful, man-sized piece of human excrement. His antics in the cause of ending outfall pollution have generated news stories as far away as South Africa.

To give Mr. Floatie a more prominent platform for his message, and to give city officials even more crap, Skwarok filed as a candidate for mayor of Victoria under the name of his character. As reported in the Toronto Star, however, city officials in Victoria took Skwarok to court to get Mr. Floatie’s name removed from the ballot. Skwarok, who is studying to be a teacher, couldn’t afford the legal fees to fight the lawsuit, which put his campaign in the toilet.

But getting Mr. Floatie off the ballot didn’t get Victoria off the hook or out of the spotlight. The neighboring city of Vancouver, B.C., just across the Strait of Georgia from Victoria, is the site of the 2010 Winter Olympics. As the time for the games approaches, journalists from around the world are likely to focus more and more attention on the bathroom habits and environmental practices of the host province and its capital city.

Suggested Reading

Living Green and Doing Good

Environment Ranks Low on Election Day

How You Can Reduce Global Warming

[Hadji Ramjet]

I know only that people I personally know who are more educated than myself, generally agree that climate change is a genuine and current phenomenon.

Well that makes it all okay then. You know them personally and they're more educated, thus their opinions must be valid. Meanwhile, a raft of people with RELEVANT education and experience are dismissed, since you don't know them personally.

Assuming that said friends share your opinions regarding your comment:

And when you look at measurable things such as receding glaciers, arctic and antarctic ice levels, and overall more extreme weather on a global scale, I don't think any denial of climate change can be taken seriously

inquire of said "more educated" friends:

1. Why is there no significant atmospheric warming since 1995, and a slight cooling trend since 2000? From the source; plug it into your favorite graphing or data analysis program and see for yourself: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_serie...ocean_v03_1.txt

2. Why are Arctic ice levels are the same as those in 1979, the year satellite observation began (University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center and the National Snow and Ice Data Center)?

3. Why are Antarctic ice levels increasing, not decreasing and the continent cooling (Syukuro Manabe and Ronald J. Stouffer (2007) Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan 85B; Lefebvre W. and H. Goosse, 2008b: Analysis of the projected regional sea ice changes in the Southern Ocean during the 21st century, Climate Dynamics, 30, 59-76, DOI 10.1007/s00382-007-0273-6; Drew T. Shindell and Gavin A. Schmidt, 2004: Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases, Geophysical Research Letters 31)?

4. Why are some glaciers advancing, particularly those in Greenland and Iceland, where 11 are not just advancing, but surging (Chylek P et al, 2004: Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet, Climatic Change 63; Braithwaite R, 2002: Glacier mass balance, the first 50 years of international monitoring, Progress in Physical Geography 26)?

5. Why is the evidence of "overall more extreme weather" utterly nonexistent (Landsea et al, 1996: Downward Trend in the Frequency of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes during the past five decades, Geophysical Research Letters 23; Henderson-Sellers et al, 1997, Tropical Cyclones and Global Climate Change: a post-IPCC assessment, Bulletin of the American Meterological Society 79; "Overall there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability has increased, in a global sense, throughout the 20th century... No long-term trends evident for tropical or extratropical storms, and no systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days or hail. IPCC 1995 & IPCC 2001)?

That some of you don't seem to recognize the obvious monetary interests at stake, and hence the obvious interest in steering public opinion, ....I find that a bit startling.

Gee, you're at a loss to criticize the research, your ad-hominem attacks are miserable at best, and now you try to impunge motives?

James Hansen, catastrophic global warming pundit, received a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation, and what had he done to merit such a sum?He "homogenized" USHCN (United States Historical Climatology Network) GISTEMP (GISS Surface Temperature) data plots into one chart with polynomial fit trend lines. Where the raw data clearly indicates a cooling trend, Hansen's own curiously compensating algorithm adjusted the data to show a warming trend. Nice work if you can get it.

IPCC estimates that to merely START reducing greenhouse gases will cost the equivalent of 1.1% of the GDP of the entire planet for the next 50 years. Lots of money to be made if you join the faith.

The imbalance of money between the promoters of climate fears and skeptics is so large that one 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture grant of $20 million to study how "farm odors" contribute to global warming exceeded ALL of the money the groups skeptical of climate fears allegedly received from ExxonMobil over the past two decades.

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter estimates proponents of global warming fears worldwide have received over $50 billion from international sources and the U.S. over the last two decades. "In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," Carter wrote on June 18, 2007. The U.S. alone spends over $5 billion a year on research directly or indirectly related to global warming.

Wonder who it really is that's "steering public opinion" for monetary interest?

[Guest woxof]

And don't forget, the general consensus among the greenies is that you will have to subsidize China etc, to combat global warming despite the now consideration for an aircraft carrier and the 15% increase in defence spending next year. Just listen to podcast #3 by Gwynn Dyer in the last global warming thread on this forum.

And here is the type of person that wants to control the future of your aviation career...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/ma...n-slime-protest

[Mitch Cronin]

Holy hadji... You assume much. Most of the people I know are more educated than myself. I have very little education you see. So what you quoted was just me saying, "hey, all them smart folks I knows... they all sez it's real, but I wouldn't know."

In a prior post I also clearly stated: I'm really not one to be arguing for or against, since I have no expertise in the relevant fields....

So who/what am I going to believe? What I can learn on all sorts of science based web sites and from those around me who know stuff, or a character on the internet?

[edited to remove part of last nights alcohol tainted response]

By the way, Hadji... "ad-hominem attacks" ? I don't see 'em...

[mo32a]

Victoria Proud of Pollution

According to many environmentalists, however, the worst offender in the Canadian landscape is Victoria, the picturesque provincial capital of British Columbia. Not only does Victoria pump its raw sewage directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, an arm of the Pacific Ocean, but city officials also claim they are doing the “right and responsible thing” for their community and the environment. They see no reason to change.

Not all of their constituents agree.

A group of activists called People Opposed to Outfall Pollution (POOP) has taken a lighthearted approach to a serious issue, poking fun at city officials with bathroom humor and using clever guerilla marketing tactics to focus a firestorm of embarrassing international media attention on Victoria’s toilet habits.

Do some reasearch an you will find most of their constituents do agree.

Including the Chretien governments Environment minister who lives in the area and is an ardent "greenie"

Treatment plants would produce many more pollutants than the current tertiary treatment does and there are a lot of scientists who agree and think spending billions of dollars on treatment plants are a complete waste of time. There are some folk on San Juan islands that complain Victoria's sewage is showing up on their shores in the form of tampons and other niceties. They don't understand that all the sewage that emanates from Victoria is screened to a very small size before it goes in the water. Anything they are getting is probably coming from boats plying the area.

[Guest woxof]

Thanks for the info Hadji. A lot more than I realized. My instinctive scepticism appears to be on the right track. I would be curious about ice thickness levels between now and 1990. I wonder what the percentages of multi-year old ice is compared to new ice. The truth is the truth after all.

You are certainly bang on in terms of stating that just because you know someone who is more educated(or if you are married to someone with a background) etc, doesn't mean that their opinion has any validity. Proof is always the important issue.

Things are not always as they seem however. During my hike and helicopter visits on Franz Josef and Fox Glaciers in N.Z. I was told that they are advancing in this period of global warming. Supposedly something to do with the weather patterns off of Australia creating the inverse of typical advances and retreats of other typical glacier activity worldwide.

Cool....

http://www.foxguides.co.nz/gallerydetails.asp?cat=1

Of course for each study one way there always seems to be a counter study. Some evidence such as actual temperature measurements of course are undeniable. If anyone can find Suzuki's evidence from the old days of a soon-to-be ice age, I would appreciate it.

[Steam Driven]

From TIME magazine June 24, 1974.

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round."

Another Ice Age?

[Mitch Cronin]

1. Why is there no significant atmospheric warming since 1995, and a slight cooling trend since 2000? From the source; plug it into your favorite graphing or data analysis program and see for yourself:  ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_serie...ocean_v03_1.txt

Since 1995? and 2000? Are you joking? How about some real trend monitoring?

No need to plug in the data, it's been done already, and I'm no expert, but it sure looks like there's a trend. That image is from This page http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

...and for a longer record:

(from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/milltemp/)

[Guest ACSideStick]

Let's not forget that in the lead up to Y2K, the geekiest, smartest braniacs in the world predicted the end of it as trains would crash, airplanes would fall, pacemakers would quit, microwaves won't make popcorn!

NOTHING HAPPENED

The whole world was prepared for a disaster of catyclismic proportion.

The world's "experts" were all wrong, to a man.

[Mitch Cronin]

2. Why are Arctic ice levels are the same as those in 1979, the year satellite observation began (University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center and the National Snow and Ice Data Center)?

Here http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ is some data that you evidently haven't seen?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-66...UH4qsrAKLi4mfBw

[Mitch Cronin]

3. Why are Antarctic ice levels increasing, not decreasing and the continent cooling (Syukuro Manabe and Ronald J. Stouffer (2007) Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan 85B; Lefebvre W. and H. Goosse, 2008b: Analysis of the projected regional sea ice changes in the Southern Ocean during the 21st century, Climate Dynamics, 30, 59-76, DOI 10.1007/s00382-007-0273-6; Drew T. Shindell and Gavin A. Schmidt, 2004: Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases, Geophysical Research Letters 31)?

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02...ic-warming.html

"Antarctic ice melt more widespread than first thought: scientists"

"Last Updated: Wednesday, February 25, 2009"

Perhaps your google pages haven't been updated?

"A report by thousands of scientists for the 2007-2008 International Polar Year concluded that the western part of the continent is warming up, not just the Antarctic Peninsula.

Previously most of the warming was thought to occur on the narrow stretch pointing toward South America, said Colin Summerhayes, executive director of the Britain-based Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and a member of International Polar Year's steering committee."

[Mitch Cronin]

4. Why are some glaciers advancing, particularly those in Greenland and Iceland, where 11 are not just advancing, but surging (Chylek P et al, 2004: Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet, Climatic Change 63; Braithwaite R, 2002: Glacier mass balance, the first 50 years of international monitoring, Progress in Physical Geography 26)?

http://glacier-bay.gsfc.nasa.gov/hall.science.txt.html

"Although most of the Earth's small glaciers have been retreating, many glaciers are advancing. Some are advancing due to local climatic conditions and others are advancing due to factors not directly tied to climate such as the tidewater glacier cycle. Landsat, in use for almost a quarter of a century, is an excellent source of global information on decadal-scale glacier-terminus changes. Along with ancillary measurements, an assessment of changes in regional mass balance of glaciers can be made. Many of the glacierized regions on Earth have diminished in size during the last century or more. Interpretation of satellite data can reveal the magnitude of these changes and permit regional monitoring of glaciers over time."

[AME]

The discredited reference was to the few fella's mentioned as "experts" early on in the thread... I felt that they had been pretty much discredited by their peers, and their choice of employment... perhaps I was wrong. If so, fine.

I'm really not one to be arguing for or against, since I have no expertise in the relevant fields....

I know only that people I personally know who are more educated than myself, generally agree that climate change is a genuine and current phenomenon. And when you look at measurable things such as receding glaciers, arctic and antarctic ice levels, and overall more extreme weather on a global scale, I don't think any denial of climate change can be taken seriously.

Whether to call it "Global Warming, or "Climate Change", and whether or not human activity is a contributing factor, both don't seem as pertinent as whether or not we can help minimize it's impact on our species' chances for survival.

That some of you don't seem to recognize the obvious monetary interests at stake, and hence the obvious interest in steering public opinion, ....I find that a bit startling.

Mitch

Here is something to think about.

Not far from where I grew up there is a place in the Pine Pass (North Eastern BC Rockie Mountains) where you can find thousands of fossilized seashells, this is real evidence that at some point in the Earth's history that area was under water, there is also real evidence of glacial erosion proving that the same area at some point was under a sheet of ice.

"That some of you don't seem to recognize the obvious monetary interests at stake, and hence the obvious interest in steering public opinion, ....I find that a bit startling."

I understand and somewhat agree with you here, but you failed to mention that the supporters of "Climate Change" are pushing the sale of "Carbon Credits" and it could be argured that they have just as large of a monetary stake in their support of climate change as those who oppose the idea.

Just some thing to think about

[Mitch Cronin]

5. Why is the evidence of "overall more extreme weather" utterly nonexistent (Landsea et al, 1996: Downward Trend in the Frequency of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes during the past five decades, Geophysical Research Letters 23; Henderson-Sellers et al, 1997, Tropical Cyclones and Global Climate Change: a post-IPCC assessment, Bulletin of the American Meterological Society 79; "Overall there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability has increased, in a global sense, throughout the 20th century... No long-term trends evident for tropical or extratropical storms, and no systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days or hail. IPCC 1995 & IPCC 2001)?

"The recent spate of heat waves and heavy rain and snow storms afflicting certain parts of the globe could become more widespread by the end of the century, scientists say."

(from http://www.livescience.com/environment/061...me_weather.html )

"For many regions in the mid- and high-latitudes, mainly in the Northern Hemisphere, heavy and extreme precipitation events have increased by 2 to 4 percent in the last 50 years. Parts of Africa and Asia have suffered increases in both the frequency and intensity of drought in recent decades."

(from http://www.acer-acre.org/ClimateChangeCD/sec5/511d.htm )

[Mitch Cronin]

Hi Brett.... Yeah the carbon credits idea seems nuts to me...

I don't have any answers. All I can do is read what I find... and what's presented... As I started out saying, there are oodles of sites with good information, and probably an equal amount with bad information. It seems to me that most of the reputable, and official, and science backed sources are inclined toward agreeing that climate change is real. Hadji et al can follow their doubts all the way to a barren earth, if they like...

Maybe people who don't have any children aren't as likely to want to change the way they live in order to try to keep the planet habitable? I don't know... To me it seems likely that folks with kids will have more interest in what we leave for future generations?

To my mind, (get that Hadji? this is just my opinion) the intense monetary interests hoping we don't change our ways are obviously at work in creating as much doubt as they can. I haven't the slightest doubt that people are being paid to do all they can to debunk the notions of global climate change. ...and when I look at who I think it is with the most to lose, either way, I know which side I'd prefer to stand with. I really don't think the heads of OPEC and the George Bush's of this planet give a flying fiddle about what we leave behind.

[AME]

Mitch

I agree climate change is real. For me the question is... "Is this something manmade, or is the earth simply returning to its natural state?"

For what it's worth here is how I think.....

It is a given and everyone agrees that in Earth's history there have been cycles of heating and cooling, to the best of my knowledge no one can actually prove or disprove the cause of this cycling. What I do know is that every year I see a swing of 60+ degrees C in ambient temperature that is caused by a very slight variance in the relative distance from the sun and a shorter day.

There is fossilize evidence of Dinosaurs’ in Northern BC (Tumbler Ridge) so this would indicate that at some point the area was sub tropical at best, and there is growing support for the theory that the Dino's were wiped out by a single cataclysmic event (a big rock hit the Earth) this plunged the world into a global winter that precipitated the last ice age.

For me the question is.... “Is what we are experiencing now the norm? Or are we still in the transition to what is normal for Earth?”

In my simplistic way, I look at it like a glass of water that is at room temperature, if you drop in a couple of ice cube the temp drops significantly and then gradually starts returning to normal, and this return is not linear as the ice cubes decrease in size the speed at which they are melting increases, which for me is one way to explain the seemingly dramatic shift upwards in global temps.

Now having said all that, do I think we need to clean up our act. Yes of course, and I can tell you if anyone’s stress about pollution is based on their experience in North America alone, all I can say is “Baby you ain’t seen nothing yet”

[Moon The Loon]

The oldest petrified forest in the world is up on Axel Heiberg Island ~80 north latitude.

http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761...erg_island.html

[Mitch Cronin]

No doubt, Earth has gone through many changes over time, and will continue to do so...

Still, so far, one could be forgiven, I think, for believing our actions have changed our environment in a negative way. Perhaps arguing over the extent of that is pointless?

Trying to correct it seems like a better idea to me?

...even if that makes me an evil "greeny".

[AME]

No doubt, Earth has gone through many changes over time, and will continue to do so...

Still, so far, one could be forgiven, I think, for believing our actions have changed our environment in a negative way. Perhaps arguing over the extent of that is pointless?

Trying to correct it seems like a better idea to me?

...even if that makes me an evil "greeny".

I think the point that is upsetting to a lot of people is the seemingly knee jerk reaction and desire to spend billions of tax dollars on the "cause de jour"

There is nothing wrong with being a "Greenie" but if memory serves me correctly you drive a diesel suburban and own a power boat right?

[Mitch Cronin]

Actually... the boat was sold last year and the Sub stays parked in the garage these days. ... Wife drives a 4 banger and I drive a v6 and car pool.

[AME]

Actually... the boat was sold last year and the Sub stays parked in the garage these days. ... Wife drives a 4 banger and I drive a v6 and car pool.

Cool, the same with me, my truck is parked for more than 6 months a year and the wife drives a 4 banger as well, we recycle, and try to pick up a couple pieces of garbage every time we walk along the river by our house.

[Guest woxof]

THE WAR ON AVIATION

http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article....?articleID=2603

"As has been noted in ATW's new e-newsletter, Eco-Aviation Today, the UK is the EU's largest importer of illegally felled timber, according to WWF, and deforestation is the major contributor to man-caused CO2 emissions, vastly outweighing the impact of aviation. In fact, a November report by the Global Canopy Program claims that one day of deforestation--mainly in the tropics--will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 12.5 million people flying from London to New York. This is the same UK government that recently hiked the Air Passenger Duty in a step deliberately intended to act as a brake on air travel"

Woxof.....If only people were logical enough to work on putting illegal loggers out of business instead of us.

[Thebean]

When the proponents of global warming can explain this picture to me, I'll buy into their program.

https://rcpt.yousendit.com/664580665/6a9196...16751680ec9c982

This is from the Feb 1998 National Geographic, page 55. The story is titled: On the Edge of Antarctica: Queen Maud Land

The picture caption is as follows: While treacherous weather came as no surprise, a seal carcass found more than 100 miles from the coast, did. Mummified by the arid, cold climate, it may be centuries old.

So......did the seal drag it's ass 100 miles across the ice to die, or, just perhaps, a couple of centuries ago, open water was a maybe a couple of hundred yards away? Does that carcass look like something that would blow across the ice 100 miles? If so, where is all the other debris?

Maybe cyclical climate change has caused ice to extend 100 miles to where it was in 1998 and today, and now it's slowly melting back to where this animal died way back when....

Global warming is big business.

[Guest rattler]

And then there is something else, much more immediate to worry about than Global Warming, However no one ever pets a fish, except those of us who scuba dive.

Fish-eating craze harming environment: report

Article  Comments (16)  MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

Globe and Mail Update

March 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM EDT

Eating fish has always been touted as an excellent dietary source of protein, with Health Canada's food guide recommending everyone eat two servings a week. The recent craze over the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish has only added to the allure.

But is eating fish the best choice for health and the planet?

Although negative views about fish consumption are almost never expressed, a group of medical and fisheries experts is making an argument against eating the seafood in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

In an analysis being released Tuesday, they say that the purported benefits of fish for such things as cardiovascular health have been overstated, while the growing demand among health aficionados for the food is destroying global fish stocks.

“The public view is that fish are good for you. There is plenty of it and let's go for it,” said David Jenkins, a nutrition professor at the University of Toronto and lead author of the journal article. “I don't think either of those views should be as strongly held as they are.”

The pitch against fish consumption because it is environmentally tainted had one unusual author, for a medical journal. The well known Canadian nature writer Farley Mowat reviewed the analysis and decided to lend his imprimatur to the call against seafood.

“I'm just desperately worried about what's happening to the life in the ocean, as everybody should be who thinks about it at all,” Mr. Mowat said in an interview.

While Mr. Mowat personally loves to eat fish, he takes the problem seriously and seldom has it on his dinner plate now.

“The fish population is declining so rapidly that I try not to lean on it any harder than I have to,” he said.

The big health reason for eating fish is that they contain omega-3 fatty acids, or fish oils as they are also known, a nutrient linked to the prevention of coronary artery disease. There is also widespread interest in the oils as an elixir for a long list of conditions, including cancer, dementia, Crohn's disease, and multiple sclerosis.

Dr. Jenkins said the view that fish are among the best foods is strongly held by the public, but the claim is open to question.

One problem is that studies showing better coronary health among those who eat fish regularly could be skewed by so called confounding factors, or alternative causes. Fish eaters generally have better lifestyles than other people, exercising more and smoking less, another possible explanation for the results of health surveys.

Vegetarians get along just fine and do not appear to be at increased risk of heart disease, even though they eschew animal proteins, suggesting there may be other ways of achieving the benefits of fish, without actually having to eat them.

That is why Dr. Jenkins said a way to settle the question over the nutritional benefits would be to conduct studies to see “whether just by going for a walk and eating less saturated fat” would lead to the same improvements in health outcomes as fish eating.

Although many studies have found benefits from the oils, there are occasional examples of harm, including one that examined men with angina. This study unexpectedly showed an increased risk of cardiac death, according to the journal article While there are claims and counter claims about the benefits of fish, there is no dispute over the world's dwindling supply of the creatures.

“The demand for fish is higher than what oceans can supply, said Rashid Sumaila, acting director of the University of British Columbia's Fisheries Centre, who predicted that many of the world's most important fisheries are going the way of Newfoundland's exhausted cod stocks.

Aquaculture involving carnivorous fish isn't the answer either, according to Prof. Sumaila, a co-author of the journal article. It takes anywhere from two to five kilogram of edible smaller fish, such as anchovies, to make a kilogram of farmed salmon. Raising big fish this way only leads to the depletion of other species.

One possibility would be to farm plant-eating fish, such as carp, but Canadians typically turn their noses up at these species.

For those who want to have the benefits of fish oil and avoid the environmental harm, Dr. Jenkins suggests some alternatives. He said the DHA omega-3 found in fish can instead be extracted from algae (where fish ultimately get it). Infant formula has this type of DHA added for proper eye and brain development.

Research is also underway to see if a second type, EPA omega-3, can be extracted from modified yeast cells or plants instead of fish. In the meantime, he said some oils, such as the one from flax seed, also contain omega-3 and could be used as a substitute.

[Don Hudson]

Bean, woxof;

If you missed it from another thread, George Carlin has it right. In fact he'd probably agree with you both, not because you're right but because it really doesn't matter whether you're right or not. It doesn't matter whether anyone is right. If you're right, the planet is already going do as it will so we may as well party on. If those commiepinkotreehuggingteacherlovingleftwingobamasupportingenvironuts are right and global warming is within our control you will still get your wish because we, and therefore business, are not going to change because we have careers and profit to make; - and to feel good we're going to barter carbon credits. So, you're probably right. Stop worrying - just enjoy yourselves.