Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Genetic Study Provides Estimate of Whale Populations

Posted by michael on from the a-whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite-whale dept.

ChopsMIDI writes "Many more whales were hunted in the 18th century than thought, a genetic study of the North Atlantic animals suggests. U.S. researchers say the International Whaling Commission may be underestimating by tenfold the number of whales in the seas before hunting began."

3 of 30 comments (clear)

  1. Bogus Study? by Nagatzhul · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is pretty bogus. They simply want to stop whales from ever being hunted again. The current agreements specify when hunting can begin again. They number is set based on historic levels. If they can "prove" that whale levels were much higher, they can insure they will never be hunted again because they will never reach huntable levels.

    --
    "All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
  2. Re:It was done by whale biologists! by Nagatzhul · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Hmmm..... Reading a challenge for you? It is great for you to have an opinion that disagrees with mine. More power to you. However, if you mod me down because my opinion differs from yours, me thinks you are feeling a bit threatened.

    As for the study and who it was done by, yes it was done by geneticists, but they are focused on a specific result. And if fudging the study allows them to gain that result, then they feel perfectly justified in doing so.

    --
    "All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
  3. Re:It was done by whale biologists! by Pentagram · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    you would [have] seen at least one link from a reputable source that argued scientifically with the premise of the conclusion ...which is a hell of a long way from saying that the study was fudged, or that the scientists involved are liars, which is what you claimed. And then you whined like a little baby when your post was rightly modded as flamebait. Even if the study is only partially correct the science is clearly going to be plausible or it would not have passed the peer review process and got accepted by Science.

    The disagreement I assume you are referring to was constructive and had a logical basis, unlike your vindictive and entirely useless "contribution" to the debate. Is it enjoyable being the turd floating in the gene pool?