read the BR_letter_re_SCA_review.pdf attachment, WMYThe original letter and review to which Riddell is responding too.
read the BR_letter_re_SCA_review.pdf attachment, WMYThe original letter and review to which Riddell is responding too.
read the BR_letter_re_SCA_review.pdf attachment, WMY
As Wildman had said your only posting half of the topic. Could we see the other half? If not what does this even mean?However, I must address concerns over a recent internal report that presents DFO Science Advice in response to a request submitted by DFO Aquaculture Management Division.
Re Read it until you understand what it means. To me it points out the recent internal DFO report only saw what the writers wanted to see and went out of its way not to see anything else.As Wildman had said your only posting half of the topic. Could we see the other half? If not what does this even mean?
Wow topic shift, what a surprise. I've answered your question 3 times. Again do you have any supportive information regarding sea lice? All you have done is taken number counted by the farm in June and turned it around and made the statement that fish farms are killing out going smolt production. All this from a person who a page ago said I only believe the science. Still waiting. How anyone can make assumptions about an industry and then come on a public forum and try to sell it is ........Actually Fabian, you were the one that could not answer a simple question. The question as a refresher was "do you think the massive sea lice outbreak on the Clayoquot farms, which coincided with the out migration of smolts, had a negative impact on smolt survival?"
You never answered that question. A simple yes or no will do.
Do I think you are a fish farm supporter? I'm not sure. If you weren't hired by farms I doubt you would be advocating so strongly.
To me it points out the recent internal DFO report
try this one, WMY: https://www.watershed-watch.org/B_Rapid_Science_Response_re_PRV-Jaundice_study_Review-3.pdfDo u have a copy of the recent internal review?
Ya - it looks like Mark Higgins and Stewart Johnson signed off on this. Sure doesn't help provide assurance to the public that our regulators are "unbiased" - or even honest for that matter. Justice Cohen mentioned this as one of his recommendations.Very interesting thanks
...4/ It is long past time to assume either the regulators or spokespersons from the industry they protect tell the truth or can be trusted....
Science says: https://leaderpost.com/news/world/d...nals/wcm/009fc3f4-44cb-4aaa-b5ee-575142a59ccd
Peer reviewed!
Thank you and I know what Eulachon are other than great bait. How do rainbow get infected? And isn't this just theoretical science? In other words, this is all in a lab isn't it? If its not were are the samples taken from?s
Lol....
Peer reviewed papers only look at how the science was conducted not if it is factual. This is something that other people seem to have forgotten.
I know at least 15 peers who will review everything I say and concur. Every time.
Peer review in a scientific context does not mean finding a bunch of other alt right nut bars to agree with you. The peers in peer reviewed are other experts in the field, editors of scientific journals, professors who's job it is in the review not to concur or agree but to look critically at the paper for inconsistencies, logical flaws or mistakes in the scientific method or conclusions. They can do anything from make edits, to reject the paper outright and often do. The peer reviewed process is the exact opposite of what you insinuate it is.
Peer review in a scientific context does not mean finding a bunch of other alt right nut bars to agree with you. The peers in peer reviewed are other experts in the field, editors of scientific journals, professors who's job it is in the review not to concur or agree but to look critically at the paper for inconsistencies, logical flaws or mistakes in the scientific method or conclusions. They can do anything from make edits, to reject the paper outright and often do. The peer reviewed process is the exact opposite of what you insinuate it is.
Are you kidding? wowScience says: https://leaderpost.com/news/world/d...nals/wcm/009fc3f4-44cb-4aaa-b5ee-575142a59ccd
Peer reviewed!
Peer review in a scientific context does not mean finding a bunch of other alt right nut bars to agree with you. The peers in peer reviewed are other experts in the field, editors of scientific journals, professors who's job it is in the review not to concur or agree but to look critically at the paper for inconsistencies, logical flaws or mistakes in the scientific method or conclusions. They can do anything from make edits, to reject the paper outright and often do. The peer reviewed process is the exact opposite of what you insinuate it is.