Fishing for False Fortunes
Wow... "menu-speak" has been out of control for years, but this is truly awful. I served Sablefish for years; it sells even without the cute name. The Escolar problem has been well documented for almost 20 years. If the chefs and owners are willing to overtly lie to their guests regarding seafood, can they be trusted with sanitation and safety? As a culinary arts instructor, training the next generation of cooks and chefs, I will be beefing up the ethics portion of my class.
Read the article BOSTON.COM/On the menu, but not on your plate
<>
Long, international supply chains offer far too many opportunities for cheating. Try buying directly from Jordan Brothers Seafood or other local fishmonger, and cook it yourself. It's really best to buy your food from local suppliers whenever possible. Then you can talk directly to the farmer or fish wholesaler. These family businesses have a vested interest in sustainability and responsibility...you also know where your food is coming from, and what is in it, or in the case of fish, what it is.
Industrial fishing, industrial agriculture, and industrial meat production are not good...destructive to the environment, unhealthy to humankind, and often very abusive and cruel
Read the article BOSTON.COM/On the menu, but not on your plate
<>
Thanks for confirming what I have long suspected. When NOAA established the fact that fish stocks have been depleted and New England favorites like Haddock, Halibut and Stripers were becoming scarce I wondered what restaurants would replace those species with.
A few species from southern waters started showing up on menus(mahi,snapper,pompano,Chilean sea bass). Farmed fish like tilapia was viewed as inferior.
As time went on the southern fish species became depleted also. Red Snapper has been restricted. Mahi is really a game fish and not that easy to harvest. Pompano is more seasonal and also not that easy to harvest. So what you're left with is farmed fish and these other species that a lot people have never heard of.
When the waiter at your favorite seafood restaurant is smiling and asking how you want your Mahi prepared and charging you $20 plus for it, pull out your picture array of fish species and ask him to pick out what you're ordering.
Read the article BOSTON.COM/On the menu, but not on your plate
<>
One way to combat the "fraud" in the industry is to adjust the expectations of customers. "Day boat" fish may have been caught by a boat that fishes one day at a time, but that doesn't mean you get to eat it that same day, or the next day, or even the next week. And fish can be extremely fresh without having been caught the same week. Most swordfish, for example, is caught by longliners, some of whom stay out for 40 to 50 days. But because customers won't knowingly accept fish that was caught a month ago, restaurants and fish markets will claim "Oh, our swordfish was harpooned just the other day, in local waters." Well, guess what? There aren't enough harpooners left to provide all the supposedly harpooned swordfish that is listed on menus.
Getting some of these basic truths out would help reduce the pressure on restauranteurs and fishmongers, all of whom are trying to appease the illusion-addled minds of customers
.Read the article BOSTON.COM/On the menu, but not on your plate
Can Animals Really Be Gay? -- Or Are They Just Curious?
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Unit
Yes, George, there are gay animals. Read "Sex In Nature" by Chris Catton & James Gray, published by Facts on File Publications - 1985. As the whole animal and mammal kingdom would say, "We're here, we're queer...get use to it."
Nature does not discriminate and it even uses homosexuality to control populations where food is scarce. Welcome to planet Earth.
Read the article POPSCI/Can Animals Be Gay? -- Or Are They Just Curious?
<>
I just want to quickly chime in about the tone of a few comments. This forum includes a diverse array of backgrounds and opinions; obviously not everyone will agree on all subject matters, especially one as controversial as this. However, referring to people as genetic errors or comparing them to their dogs just rips me apart. An alarming amount of teens are committing suicide because they experience same-sex attraction and do not have anyone trusted to talk to. I was an avid read of PopSci as a kid, and if I were to have read these posts, I would have been emotionally decimated.
If you have a concern about someone who is exhibiting behaviors that you don't agree with or feel puts them at physical, emotional or moral risk, please sit down with them and have a deep and understanding conversation to try to help. Please do not post vague and judgmental comments on the internet -- even if they are not intended to hurt people, they do.
I struggled as a devote Christian teenager when I realized I was more attracted to the same sex. I fought these feelings for years, not acting on urges and lived a heterosexual lifestyle. Eventually I came to the conclusion that I was not happy or truthful with who I was and I accepted that I was gay. I am now happy, partnered for 4 years and planning on having children - I am still a Christian. I don't expect you to understand that; my identity has developed over years of self-reflection, prayer, and studying Canonical and non-canonical history. I respect the fact that you don't agree; I leave each to their own journey.
Back to the topic, I think the fact that scientists observed homosexual sexual encounters in multiple species is fascinating. I loved the interesting posts about how homosexual animals could have possibly came about because they may help nurture a generation. I did pause and wonder when some posts said homosexual behaviors would be bread out by natural selection, but then again that wouldn't explain why they are currently being observed. I think we should study this, write articles about it, and have lively discussions on why it would occur! But, please, let's not attack each other for thinking differently about social or religious implications.
Read the article POPSCI/Can Animals Be Gay? -- Or Are They Just Curious?
<>
The article & the corresponding photo gallery discusses several different studies of animal behavior, not human behavior.
The research seems to indicate a behavior tendency simply towards pleasure or gratification. This is neither "gay" nor curiosity, it's animal behavior. It doesn't correspond to human behavior. Humans are far more complex in our cognitive decision making process than the other species on this planet.
It is important for us to understand other species so that we can better direct our actions to benefit them and ourselves. We are responsible to care for the planet and all its inhabitants. Studies like this help provide important keys to our effective management. We will be held accountable for our actions.
Read the article POPSCI/Can Animals Be Gay? -- Or Are They Just Curious?
<>
Evolution: In a social species like humans, evolution may actually favour populations which have a certain percent of non-child producing adults- thus favouring a certain number of gay people. Especially in olden days when families were closer knit. A gay aunt or uncle that helps raise a child of their siblings may have more chance of their family genes being passed on then if they were to have their own children competing for the resources- in which none of the children may have enough to prosper and reach reproductive age.
Many birds have similar traits where they will help close relatives raise their young. Many species may have ancestors that do this.
If you think of the honeybee as a classic example- the workers do not directly pass on their genes- but they help continue their own genetic line by helping their mother reproduce.
Driving Factors: who says it is one size fits all. As with most behavioural things; it is probably a combination of nurture and nature. Our genes and our environment probably both play towards our preference. Most likely it is not all one or the other.
As for animals vs humans: It seems birds, and monogamous species seem to fit more into the human definition. There may be more "movement" between preference in these animals than with humans because humans seem to be more likely to apply logic and label themselves as one or the other... one who labels himself straight or gay is likely to stick to that definition. We teach ourselves consciously or subconsciously that certain traits are desirable.
Even in humans though- people "change" preference as they learn to relabel themselves.
Read the articlee POPSCI/Can Animals Be Gay? -- Or Are They Just Curious?
California Moves to Ban Shark Fin Soup
The banning of whaling allowed whale stocks to recover, so in that regard it was successful. Optimistically, a ban like this could be reversed after the recovery of shark stocks, but the ban should be enacted sooner rather than later.
While the Chinese have been eating shark fin soup for centuries, the recent economic advancements in China have led to a wealthier working class that can consume the delicacy outside of normal holidays, weddings and special events. This demand has risen so much that now other countries, like Brazil, are depleting their own stocks of sharks to cash in.
As for sharks, they have no natural enemies. They are among the apex predators of the ocean and are designed to keep other fish and mammal species in check, consume rotting corpses, and are part of a larger overall ecosystem. They are prehistoric animals that have been around for tens of thousands of years. If there hasn't been a population explosion then, I doubt there will be one now.
Read the article CNN/Shark fin soup one step closer to being banned in California
<>
Sorry, but this bill is not discriminatory. It's focus is the sharks, not the Chinese culture. Just because they are the only ones that use shark fins doesn't mean it's directed towards them willingly. It's for any and all uses of the fins by anyone. That includes Americans, Italians, you name it. Fact is, most don't want to participate in this barbaric practice anyway so that leaves the Chinese. That's more their problem than anything.
Read the article CNN/Shark fin soup one step closer to being banned in California
<>
While I personally abhor it, there isn't anything wrong with the MANAGED fishing, killing, and eating of sharks. The trouble is the shark fin industry kills sharks in an inhumane way and completely wastes the rest of the body. We don't allow trophy hunting for deer either. These are sustainable ways of using our natural resources. Shark hunting should be heavily managed, all parts used, and shark fins should become even more or a rarity, but one that remains available an includes, humane killings and sustainable use of our resources.
Another option would be to farm the sharks like tuna, salmon, etc. Still, one would want to have humane practices in place for the slaughter of these animals.
Read the article CNN/Shark fin soup one step closer to being banned in California
<>
This is an important position to take and California should be in the lead. Sharks are an apex predator without which our oceans and our lives are effected. Fining for those of you who do not know is very cruel. The animal dies a slow death by bleeding to death. The waste is not only the single fish but the whole ecosystem. This isn't trivial and it has nothing to do with culture or racial values.
Read the article SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/Shark fin bill passes senate, awaits governor
<>
Good. While I respect Asian cultures that have used shark in food preparations, many cultural norms are not sustainable throughout history. We can no longer hunt whales with reckless abandon, we've stopped using mercury for medicinal purposes and we no longer bleed people to get rid of "the bad blood" (although leeches are still used in modern medicine for various applications).
Point being, that no one will starve to death without having a shark fin in their soup. Life will go on, the sun will still rise, and the world will still turn. I would challenge any culture whose practices endangered the environment to find another outlet. View it as an opportunity to start a new tradition that's sustainable.
Read the article SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/Shark fin bill passes senate, awaits governor
Tar Sands Pipeline Becomes Sticking Point
Once this oil is refined in Port Arthur, Texas, it's on the open market. It's going to South America, Europe, possibly China. There is nothing to say it will be coming to the midwest US or anywhere in America. If so they could pipe it to the upper midwest and refine it there and truck it out.
Quit buying the lie that this is for US energy security.
TransCanada has stated they are wanting to manipulate US energy prices here in the US to raise additional billions of dollars for Canadian companies.
Who's paying for that? You and me, with every breath we take.
Once again, welcome to the party, Governor Dave. Your support for re-routing the damn thing is appreciated and applauded.
Oops. I just said a good thing about a rascally republican. Oh well, I just calls 'em as I see 'em.
Read the article LINCOLN JOURNAL STAR/Heineman wants president to deny pipeline permit
<>
Here's the deal: TransCanada is planning to build a pipeline (Keystone XL) to Texas. Its biggest competitor, Enbridge, is planning to build a pipeline (Northern Gateway) to the Pacific - to service China. PetroChina has made it obvious it is willing to front a lot of cash for rights to what the potential pipeline will carry.
Wouldn't it be ironic for the United States to import increasing amounts of oil from the Middle East while an American ally exported increasing amounts of oil to China? The obvious political irony isn't even the greatest one, mind you.
The real irony is that by accepting the pipeline, and maintaining its status as majority-consumer of oilsands crude, America would buy not just oil but influence over the development of that oil, upstream to down, that it would not have otherwise and which China is not going to exert. In other words, this isn't a bilateral debate: if you truly care about the environmental consequences of oilsands development, you mustn't think only of your own actions and abstain, but think of the actions others will make when you have rescinded your say.
In light of this, accepting the Keystone XL, and in turn maintaining the magnitude of its voice and influence on the upstream oilsands development, is possibly the greatest contribution to the environment the United States could make in regards to the oilsands. THAT is irony.
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/1,700-mile oil pipeline from Canada to Texas won’t harm environment, State Dept. says
<>
First, I best note that I am a retired Seismic Surveyor, who spent 30 years surveying Seismic Lines so that Geophysicists and Geologists could find underground rock layers that had the right shape to possibly contain hydrocarbons. I read up on Geology, and on Geophysics, so I could talk with those fellows.
The 'controversy' about the Aquifer, and the soi-disant "Dirty Alberta Oils and Crude" looks quite silly, from here in Lethbridge, where we have quite a bit of Irrigation Expertise...
I say "silly" because the Irrigators who draw water from the Ogallala Aquifer are just Water-Mining, drawing far, far more from the Aquifer than it is getting from natural recharge. I shall include just one of the many Sites available on the 'Net:
"The general shallow depth of the High Plains aquifer makes it extremely susceptible to run-off contamination. The over-application of various herbicides and pesticides become diluted into run-off rain water and eventually percolate into the underlying aquifer unit. Significant increases in concentrations of sodium, alkalinity, nitrate, and triazine (a herbicide) have been found in water that underlies small areas of irrigated cropland in Nebraska and Kansas (USGS, 1997). In a recent study of 132 wells in Nebraska in 1984-1985, 43 had dangerous amounts of atrazine. Also to note was an abrupt increase in 2, 4-D (2,4-Dichlorophen-oxyacetic acid) was found in water that underlies rangeland in a small area around Great Bend, Kansas (USGS, 1997.)"
I find it quite astonishing, that "The Environmentally Concerned" folks argue against a Crude Oil Pipeline, while ignoring the dire problems of Greater Use of water than the Rate of Recharge, plus the already measured contaminations found in existing water wells.
Is it a self-created blindness, or is it the result of silliness, such as the newspaper-quoted concern about the greater pollution around Crude Oil Refineries that the Crude Oil Pipeline is alleged to cause??? I do admit to being baffled by the logic shown in that complaint...
By the by, I have both written Environment Impact Statements, and Environmental Remediation Plans. I have also followed ERP that were written by other folks.
I note that the complainers have shown zero know about any ways to Build the XL Pipeline so as to have enhanced Leak Detections, Enhanced Leak-capture, or enhanced Pipeline-paid Artificial Recharge of the Ogallala Aquifer using cleaned water.
This Denizen of the Great White North is not very impressed by the current crop of Environmental Activists! Seems they are better at raising money than they are at actually "thinking" about the problems.
Read the article NEBRASKA STATE PAPER/XL Pipeline: Nebraska governor opposes route but refuses to endorse special legislative session to change it
<>
Doer: A man with a plum appointment who is doing what his boss tells him. Our government and its representatives abroad are not free-thinkers. They are foot-soldiers. Harper's own journeys to Central and South America recently were focused largely on oil and mining as well.
Mining companies in the North are currently burning thousands of barrels of oil a day to extract gold. These industries have powerful lobby and, right now, they have their man in power. Most are afraid to criticize because of the weak global economy, but one day people will look back and say there should have been more checks and balances in place.
By then the damage will have been done. The resources will have been plundered, and the wealthy investors (foreign or otherwise) will have made off with the loot. All for a few thousand temporary jobs. Ask a lumber mill worker if there is loyalty from the company once the profit margin shrinks....
Read the article CBC NEWS/Kent backs Keystone pipeline despite protests
<>
As a TCP shareholder, I applaud the news. There was NEVER any chance that this was going to be rejected.....the US needs to rely on oil for many years, and won't be able to sustain the defence budget required to ensure overseas oil. Good for Canada (plenty of work for a Calgary-based company) and good for the US (plenty of construction jobs, plus a secure source of oil for the next few decades).
If environmentalists want to address how much oil people use, that would be a wise choice, as we need to start to reduce our consumption. Trying to restrict the flow of a liquid that defines that way we live never made sense to me
Read the article GLOBE & MAIL/Keystone pipleline jumps key U.S. hurdle
<>
Alberta oil sands are Canada's largest employer of aboriginal Canadians.
Read the article CBC NEWS/Kent backs Keystone pipeline despite protests
READ MORE COMMENTS: JULY-AUGUST 2011
