Dead Pig Count Now Past 6000 In Shanghai River But Chinese Officials Insist Water Is Fine For Drinking

China's flagWe previously saw how Chinese environmental officials are struggling to pull dead pigs out of the river in Shanghai while assuring people that the tsunami of dead pigs has no effect on drinking the water. Now the body count is up from 900 to 6000 and some articles suggest the number is more like 9000. Yet, Chinese officials insist that they are unable to locate the source.

The pigs appear to be infected with porcine circovirus, a virus affecting pigs. It seem likely that the pigs were dumped once found to be contaminated. They were first found in the Huangpu River about 40 miles north of Shanghai. Tags on their ears trace them to the city of Jiaxing in Zhejiang province which is known for pig raising. However, Jiaxing city government officials denied responsibility for the dead pigs and said that the tags may only show where they were born.

The government has tried blaming farmers in Jiaxing but this seems more likely the result of a large factory operation. Farmers routinely throw tainted animals in the river and there are reports of the dead animals being pulled from the river and used for food in China.

Source: ABC

58 thoughts on “Dead Pig Count Now Past 6000 In Shanghai River But Chinese Officials Insist Water Is Fine For Drinking”

  1. Discount vouchers can be used for your acquisition of various items just like clothes,
    electronic devices, guides, travelling packages, gifts,
    games and in some cases food. The customer can then pay for that product or service at the lowered cost and be satisfied with the savings obtained.
    Price reductions in the form of printable PDF files
    are easily subject to alterations which can put the company at risk
    for fraud.

  2. Bron,

    “Global Warming has pretty much been debunked from what I can see.”

    How far CAN you see? Do you have proof that it has been debunked by scientists whose research isn’t funded by the fossil fuel industry, right-wing think tanks, the Kochs?

  3. “Global Warming has pretty much been debunked from what I can see.”

    Then you are not looking at anything other than your pecuniary interest in oil companies or whatever it is that makes you so interesting in pumping more carbon into the atmospheric and hydrological systems, Bron.

    Being an Objectivist? Is a bad idea. Thinking global warming isn’t real and that it isn’t related to human activity? Is simply factually wrong.

  4. Elaine:

    Many in the scientific community, on bothe sides, were pushing global warming for money. Global Warming has pretty much been debunked from what I can see.

    You need to move onto the next “big” fallacy, global water shortages and the exploitation by capitalists of “scarce” water resources.

  5. Bron,

    Because, “[g]overnment funded science isnt sciene but politics in many cases,” sounds like a bias to me.

  6. Climate-science contrarian Roy Spencer’s oil-industry ties
    By Sue Sturgis on Wed, 09/07/2011

    The controversy over a paper published last month in an obscure journal questioning the scientific consensus around man-made global warming is drawing attention to one of its authors, an outspoken skeptic of mainstream climate science who’s come under fire before because of problems with his work.

    A research scientist with the University of Alabama at Huntsville’s Earth System Science Center (ESSC), Roy Spencer is a climate contrarian with solid academic credentials. And his website bio notes that he “has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.”

    But Spencer doesn’t disclose his leadership roles in climate skeptic groups financed by Exxon and other key players in what’s been dubbed the “climate denial machine”: the network of companies, think tanks and foundations that have sought to deny and downplay the scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused in large part by human activity.

  7. gbk:

    here is the post you link to:


    Cantor is just another big government conservative which is really just a neo-con. If you are serious about cutting spending, then cut it all. Government funded science isnt sciene but politics in many cases.

    If republicans in Richmond and elsewhere knew what was good for them, they would send Cantor and his ilk back to Dogpatch.”

    So what?

    You still have to determine if it is politics and you wont be able to do that unless you evaluate the science.

    I can be philosophically opposed to government funding of science and not think all government funded science is political, which is what I said.

    How would you know the science was political unless you evaluated it properly?

  8. Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show
    Documents obtained by Greenpeace show prominent opponent of climate change was funded by ExxonMobil, among others
    By John Vidal, environment editor, Tuesday 28 June 2011

    One of the world’s most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.

    Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.

    But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world’s largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.

    In addition, freedom of information documents suggest that Soon corresponded in 2003 with other prominent climate sceptics to try to weaken a major assessment of global warming being conducted by the UN’s leading climate science body, the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Soon, who had previously disclosed corporate funding he received in the 1990s, was today reportely unapologetic, telling Reuters that he agreed that he had received money from all of the groups and companies named in the report but denied that any group would have influenced his studies.

  9. Gene H:

    the calculation should have very little to do with who is funding the study. The question is whether or not the study has merit as a scientific work. I think people too easily dismiss works like this because of the funding source.

  10. Bron,

    No one said “dismiss”. The question is one of weighting the value of evidence in light of a known vested interest. Not all evidence carries the same weight and doing that calculus includes considering bias in the form of vested interests.

  11. Gene H:

    On the one hand government should oversee regulation but on the other hand it cannot be trusted to fund a scientific study?

    The Air Force is under the DOD, are the nukes under DOE?

    Hormesis is a valid concept, if you mix that 14,000 tons of steel with 50,000 tons will the background radiation from the steel cause a problem? How long will it take to decay, etc.

    I dont think you can dismiss hormesis as a theory just because one study was funded by an organization that may or may not have an agenda.

    There is a movement to use hormesis to regulate toxins rather than the current methods used to determine acceptable concentrations.

    I for one would like to know if this is a valid methodology.

    I had thought gbk had a background in science based on some of his other posts and might have an interesting take on the concept.

  12. Bron,

    And you insult in your own way Bron, such as this statement:

    “Is sunlight good for you in low doses? Yes, it is.”


    “you do know we are subject to background radiation on a daily basis, right?”

    Like I’m a child.

    Again, I pointed out 14,000 tons of radioactive metal the DOE wants to consumerize and your response was one word, with a link. Which is also quite insulting.

    I never questioned the author’s pedigree, I questioned the paper being funded by the Air Force Material Command.

  13. Bron,

    He’s got a point. Or do you think cancer studies paid for by the tobacco industry are an unbiased view of the facts? Who pays for a study is critical, especially when there is an easily identifiable vested interest . . . like the DOE trying to dump 14,000 tons of radioactive metal.

  14. gbk:

    I showed you the man’s credentials. And asked to see yours.

    You rejected his study on dubious grounds, in fact you impugned his integrity by implying he fudged his research to help the Air Force send men to their death from radiation poisoning.

    If you are going to do that then I think you should have the intellectual chops to back it up.

    So back it up with something other than calling me a fool.

    That is all you ever have, simple ad hominem. And it isnt even creative. You need to take some lessons.

  15. Bron,

    Yeah, I’m very aware of the electromagnegtic spectrum from the sun and the radioactive decay in the planet’s core that drives plate tectonics, etc., etc.

    I never posted anything asking you to believe it, Bron. I just pointed out that the DOE is again trying to dump 14,000 tons of radioactive metal on the country in the form of consumer goods and your response was:


    Then again you state:

    “Seems to me that would be good to know if you have men dealing with nuclear material.”

    I didn’t argue otherwise. I just questioned your one word response and link given the funding of the paper. As is your wont you spread your argument attributing false perspectives and putting words in people’s mouths so that you can give a sixth-grade quip.

    Quip away, Bron. You’re truly a fool.

  16. gbk:

    you do know we are subject to background radiation on a daily basis, right?

    What is the level of radiation that causes harm to human tissue? Seems to me that would be good to know if you have men dealing with nuclear material.

    And yes, I would trust an authority on a subject over a person on a blog who does not post his credentials and tells me, “believe me, I am thus and such.”

Comments are closed.