Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Dead_Parrot

(14,478 posts)
23. Look again, kris
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 10:01 PM
Apr 2012

I haven't drawn any conclusions, just repeated those from article. Apart from the ones regarding your thought processes, obviously.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Fukushima - Slowly Killing The Northern Hemisphere cantbeserious Apr 2012 #1
no way to know if it's dangerous barbtries Apr 2012 #2
Of course there is. FBaggins Apr 2012 #4
Not now perhaps, but there was a time window when you can't say that kristopher Apr 2012 #6
"The radioactivity had no known effects on the giant kelp, or on fish and other marine life" Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #8
Do you live to misrepresent the data? kristopher Apr 2012 #12
I love the way your brain works Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #13
The sampling regime is not adequate to support your conclusions. kristopher Apr 2012 #14
science involves drawing conclusions from data, not vice versa. nt Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #15
It also involve not forcing conclusions on incomplete data kristopher Apr 2012 #17
You think Manley and Lowe forced thier conclusions? Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #19
No, I'm saying that you and Baggins are forcing Your conclusions. kristopher Apr 2012 #21
Look again, kris Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #23
Sure you did, in post 8 kristopher Apr 2012 #24
Ah. So you are agreeing? Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #25
Wrong as usual. FBaggins Apr 2012 #10
To claim that would yield workable data is beyond absurd. kristopher Apr 2012 #11
I agree with baggins on one thing - this information does not indicate present danger kristopher Apr 2012 #7
I love the smell of FUD in the morning. nt Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #9
i realize the risk is probably minimal. barbtries Apr 2012 #16
I understand. That is a perfectly normal response to the situation. kristopher Apr 2012 #18
It's already gone Yo_Mama Apr 2012 #20
You have no way of knowing the maximum localized concentrations of I131 in NA. kristopher Apr 2012 #22
And we're just finding out about this now? FLSurfer Apr 2012 #3
No...we've known all along. FBaggins Apr 2012 #5
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Radioactive Iodine from F...»Reply #23