Radiation

About (not) consuming fresh raw fish and fresh raw egg yolks
Post Reply
muirgheal
Posts: 8
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Fri 08 Jul 2011 22:16

Radiation

Post by muirgheal »

I don't think it's safe to eat fish anymore..

http://www.naturalnews.com/050674_Fukus ... phins.html
User avatar
Aytundra
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 18:33
Contact:

Re: Radiation

Post by Aytundra »

FDA of USA recently (Aug 5, 2015) posted a list of foods that they will not import from Japan, because the government of Japan said they will not export these food items because of radionuclide contamination.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/im ... t_621.html
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Radiation

Post by RRM »

From the first link:

"In 2011, nineteen Pacific states launched a study into the possible impacts of radioactive releases from Fukushima on the Asia-Pacific region specifically and the Pacific Ocean more generally."

A scientific study is the only correct response to such a situation, in my opinion.
Concluding that 'fish is not safe anymore' is rather premature, i think.
Most fish in the sea cannot possibly be affected.
muirgheal
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri 08 Jul 2011 22:16

Re: Radiation

Post by muirgheal »

User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Radiation

Post by RRM »

Too bad that he does not cite any scientific studies.
muirgheal
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri 08 Jul 2011 22:16

Re: Radiation

Post by muirgheal »

Hmm.. your right, but until we get the truth about radiation levels, I'd say, better safe then sorry. Besides.. there's so much money involved in the fish consumption industry, i wonder if we can trust any 'official' scientific research coming out if there's gonna be any at all soon..
User avatar
Aytundra
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 18:33
Contact:

Re: Radiation

Post by Aytundra »

The article did not quote photos from 'primary sources'(source from the photographer who took the original photo) properly.
In addition to not quoting information from 'primary sources' (source from the original writer(s) that presented the original data) properly.

The photos of the article are very similar to the photos debunked on the metabunk forum, where they explained that these photos were misrepresented to be photos of fish taken prior to the nuclear incident: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-fukus ... tos.t6957/

The white spots on salmon meat in that article appears like the photos of salmon infected with parasites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseases_ ... _in_salmon

This shows that the author, D. Wolfe, may not be representing ideas properly.
It is one thing to present an idea; it is another thing to present an idea that he wants to present, falsely with incorrect images and data.

If he wants to present his idea in a convincing way, first he must use images and data that actually reflect what he wants to present. And not just tear off a label from a ketchup bottle and plaster a hot sauce label on it to say "hey looke here there is a bottle of hot sauce", 'and how do you know it is hot sauce?', "Can't you see it is all red?". Like what is that?, does he think our intelligence is of a 1 year old?. Representing parasite-affected fish as nuclear-plant fish?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Radiation

Post by RRM »

Nice work, Aytundra
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Re: Radiation

Post by Oscar »

+1
Post Reply