I don't think it's safe to eat fish anymore..
http://www.naturalnews.com/050674_Fukus ... phins.html
Radiation
-
- Posts: 8
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Fri 08 Jul 2011 22:16
Re: Radiation
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
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/im ... t_621.html
Re: Radiation
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.
"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.
Re: Radiation
Too bad that he does not cite any scientific studies.
Re: Radiation
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..
Re: Radiation
The article did not quote photos from 'primary sources'(source from the photographer who took the original photo) properly.muirgheal wrote:http://www.davidwolfe.com/fukushima-rad ... h-seafood/
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?
Re: Radiation
Nice work, Aytundra