I think I was being civil, the upvotes seem to agree.
The source link was the to one of the original blog posts David Wolfe paraphrased the content and lifted the imagery from. The source link was crap and the arguments were lies that are easily debunked.
>However it links to a CBS article (that is available) this one mentions 10 times higher than usual radiation in Tuna caught off the West Coast (but its still supposed to be edible).
Yeah, detection in Tuna is concerning and needs to be considered. I wanted numbers so I found https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=FRD&id=20593 and a breakdown of how those numbers related to reality: http://abitofperspective.com/?cat=3 We are many orders of magnitude away from even a simple medical procedure. Even assuming you can afford to eat 75lbs or so of contaminated Bluefin tuna caught near Japan.
Mercury content (in any long lived fish) poses a more realistic concern. We already recommend tuna not be eaten frequently for these and sustainability reasons. But your source article was claiming that radiation was found in salmon and causing tumors there, which is a lie.
>I am not convinced. Reminds me of how the Chernobyl accident was being downplayed in an IAEA report.
Don't go throwing a red herring in here. What happened there was wrong but you can't make that argument without data. It's just as wrong as misinforming the public and causing a panic.
If you feel offended by me calling your source liar, come prepared to defend them or learn to accept new data and change your position. I responded so future readers of this thread won't be mislead into believing something that isn't true.
The source link was the to one of the original blog posts David Wolfe paraphrased the content and lifted the imagery from. The source link was crap and the arguments were lies that are easily debunked.
>However it links to a CBS article (that is available) this one mentions 10 times higher than usual radiation in Tuna caught off the West Coast (but its still supposed to be edible).
Yeah, detection in Tuna is concerning and needs to be considered. I wanted numbers so I found https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=FRD&id=20593 and a breakdown of how those numbers related to reality: http://abitofperspective.com/?cat=3 We are many orders of magnitude away from even a simple medical procedure. Even assuming you can afford to eat 75lbs or so of contaminated Bluefin tuna caught near Japan.
Mercury content (in any long lived fish) poses a more realistic concern. We already recommend tuna not be eaten frequently for these and sustainability reasons. But your source article was claiming that radiation was found in salmon and causing tumors there, which is a lie.
(Thankfully mercury levels have been declining as we move away from coal power generation: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tunas-declining-m... )
>I am not convinced. Reminds me of how the Chernobyl accident was being downplayed in an IAEA report.
Don't go throwing a red herring in here. What happened there was wrong but you can't make that argument without data. It's just as wrong as misinforming the public and causing a panic.
If you feel offended by me calling your source liar, come prepared to defend them or learn to accept new data and change your position. I responded so future readers of this thread won't be mislead into believing something that isn't true.