From: Jens
Subject: Noen observasjoner i litteraturen 2009 og 1963.

Jeg leste et par rapporter om tare, og jeg fant  et par interessante utsagn i disse. Kun for informasjon, men gir bra innblikk i hva som rørte seg for et par år siden.

Første fra 2009

http://www.sintef.no/globalassets/upload/fiskeri_og_havbruk/marin-ressursteknologi/nsttt/sintef-rapport-bioenergi-fra-tare-i-nord_fkd_6juli_2009.pdf

(side 9 av 33) “Energiproduksjon kan for eksempel kombineres med ekstraksjon av alginat. Alginat utgjør 20-30% av tørrstoffet i tare slik at en produksjon på for eksempel 75 tonn våt vekt tare pr hektar kan gi et utbytte på 4,5 tonn alginat i tilegg til 6 tonn fermenterbart sukker. Det globale markedet for alginat er på ca 30 000 tonn og har en verdi på om lag 36 000-63 000 NOK pr tonn. 500 000 tonn tare dekker alginatmarkedet, og det kan derfor ikke budsjetteres med inntekter fra alginat utover dette, sammenholdt med data for høsting av tare til samme formål.”

“Frankrike, som høster ca 75tonn tare årlig, vurderer å forby tarehøsting på bakgrunn av for lite kjennskap til effekter på biodiversitet ved høsting og et ”føre var” prinsipp fra forvaltningen med hensyn til bærekraftig utnyttelse av marine ressurser.”

Siste fra 1963

Da Protan (forløperen til FMC Biopolymer) kjempet innbitt, og litt om opprinnelsen til taretråling.

http://www.ntnu.no/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=ba39aaa2-99d7-4c2f-8996-5a620c299063&groupId=51882

(side 13) “Hvorfor Protan kritiserer innsatsen for å få klarhet i retten til tang og tare, stiller Sørensen seg helt uforståelig til, og konkluderer den lange redegjørelsen til NTNF med følgende: ”. . Jeg beklager å måtte meddele….”

(side 14) “Bare noen få måneder senere, i oktober 1963, gjentar Protan sine bekymringer og protesterer mot NITTs fortsatte kjemitekniske forsøk med alginatekstraksjon fra fersk stortare.” Så den industrien er ikke nybegynnere i å bearbeide sine omgivelser.

Vennlig hilsen
Jens

When seaweed dies a natural process of bio degradation begins.

This process naturally produces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide among other chemicals.  This gas is rated as being of a similar toxicity to cyanide gas.

In other words being near decomposing piles of Seaweed could kill you.

In fact due to the vast influx of seaweed in summer months on the coast of Brittany there has been a recorded death from this very same factor in the last few years – numerous wild and domestic animals have also died.

This is from the Telegraph Newspaper

To be able to handle large amounts of harvested seaweed Formalin has been found to be the only usable chemical capable of preventing the production of this gas.  However formalin has problems of its own.

The eec has become so concerned about this chemical that it has produced strict controls of its use – its use in animal feeds for instance will be banned from June 2015.

The main concern is its particular connection with various types of cancer, in particular leukemia.

This from Wikipedia.

To enable the Norwegian alginate industry to function it needs to use a lot of formalin

This is a report of the use of formalin from Fmc in the industry

Essentially it says that before 2000 Fmc released into the sea over 700 tons of formalin per year – fortunately they now have it under control and the release is down to about 100 tons per year.

Faktainformasjon rundt utslipp til vann og egenkontrollrapportering – FMC Biopolymer

Apparently this is the only industry that is allowed to do this.

The building at Smørholm used to store the seaweed looks poor repair – from the outside it looks as if the walls are composed of timbers slotted into place – if there is any proper jointing or plastic lining it is impossible to ascertain from the outside.

One question which has disturbed us considerably is how is the formalin dealt with after use?

Is it washed out and re used?  What happens to the waste that must be contaminated with formalin?

How much formalin does the finished alginate contain?  Are there any measures for this – has anybody measured this?

We know there are serious health issues associated with carrageenan https://www.fodmaplife.com/2014/09/30/carrageenan-low-fodmap-diet/

Nearly every month there seems to be a new exciting project aimed at seaweed cultivation – perhaps this video may explain why there ultimately seems to be so little of it.

It also explains why it is important to have as few animals as possible attaching themselves to the plants – Commercial harvesting on the Norwegian coast is done in such a way as to minimize “fouling” or the attachment of animals, unfortunately this is in wild seaweed forests which cover most of the coast.  The effects are very noticeable to those who fish in the zone but so far our politicians have ignored this

Just recently our brochure has at last been published.

It is not intended as an attack on individuals in the industry but as a dissemination of facts.

Fortunately for us we have already had some of the facts criticized and have borne up well.

Everything in this brochure can be verified by scientific papers or well sourced reports from reputable and reliable sources.

Here is a rather long and complicated paper from Imr on Carbon capture and food production in the fjords of Norway.

http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2014/04/hi-rapp_7-2014_komif_til_web.pdf/nb-no

There is a great deal here that speaks loudly against the destructive harvesting of our seaweed beds, however the most definitive is this snip – essentially it says that an estimated 150 million tons more co2 would be bound up in our ecology if the seaweed forests in the north of our Norway had not been destroyed by sea urchin predation – the 150 million tons would be over a period of 40 years .

This initially is not a attack on the seaweed harvesting industry but a careful look back in time tells a slightly different story.

Verbal history from my colleague in Stopptt tells me that he has plenty of people from as far north as the Lofoten islands who tell him that in the early 1980s seaweed dredging was a major activity all the way up the coast.
We have papers clearly revealing that the removal of seaweed – by trawling or other mechanical means leads to the opening up of those areas for population explosions of sea urchins.

So in other words it is entirely possible that the plague of sea urchins costing our fisheries so dear has been brought about by Taretråling – further still if this paper is right then it has led to a significant increase in carbon in the atmosphere.

To cap that there has been recent “test trawling” above Trondheim and islands out to sea with the removal of a declared 30,000 tons of seaweed – this of course would mean a destruction of approximately 5 times that amount because that is the official figure for waste.

So If the plague was introduced by taretråling why in the world is there no investigation and why in the world are they allowed in such a fragile area.
It makes no sense.