Skip to main content

View Diary: Fukushima Radionuclides in Pacific Albacore Tuna Off the US Coast (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  thanks for that, but it didn't answer my (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T100R

    question . . . How does the fact that this person was listed as a media contacts for NEI change any of the measured numbers?

    As for YOUR measured numbers, surely you are aware that southern Japan is not the same as the US west coast. And for someone who just griped for nine paragraphs about "small sample size!!!" (even concluding "come back with a 43,000 fish sample, and now we're talking science"), do you understand why it's hard to take you seriously when YOUR offered sample size is 37 fish?

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 07:23:19 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I was demonstrating how averages work. (0+ / 0-)

      You didn't really miss that, did you? I wasn't extrapolating to all fish everywhere. If I did that, I would be using the same 'method' I'm criticizing.

      I was showing how 'averages' tell you little to nothing about actual cases with that example. Moreover, how looking at 'averages' on a microscopic-level gives a different message than looking at 'averages' on the level on which we actually live life (actual fish being eaten by actual humans.)

      Think you might have rushed through and not really thought about what you read.

      I take it you acknowledge 47 fish, 6 fish, 18 fish is a ludicrously small sample upon which to assert safety or otherwise.

      As to the other: any appeal to authority has value only insofar as the authority has a track record of being correct. At least in Science, if not Religion.

      Those employed by the nuclear industry have a very very bad track record. When what's being presented plainly can't tell you anything objective, and it's presented by someone with a stake, it's worthy of noting when one is assessing the value of the 'evidence.'

      I don't know. Maybe some people feel 'oh, they've got a certificate, therefore they are correct' but I don't see how that makes inadequate samples suddenly become adequate.


      A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned. -- Firefly

      by Jim P on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 07:50:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and yet again my question goes unanswered . . . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        T100R

        And yet again nobody provides any different numbers . . . .

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 07:52:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  ps--I have not said a single word about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        T100R
        I take it you acknowledge 47 fish, 6 fish, 18 fish is a ludicrously small sample upon which to assert safety or otherwise.
        "safe" or "non-safe". I simply asked why measured numbers would change simply because someone we don't like is associated with them---and where I can see different numbers from anyone who has them.

        And all i got was some silly CT about "we can't trust this or that".

        Fine.  Don't trust them. Show me the numbers from people you DO trust, and show me how those numbers are different.

        In science, data trumps.  Until then, you're just pissing in the wind.  (shrug)

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 08:14:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (153)
  • Community (73)
  • 2016 (52)
  • Elections (50)
  • Bernie Sanders (45)
  • Environment (38)
  • Climate Change (37)
  • Culture (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (34)
  • Republicans (33)
  • Science (31)
  • Education (30)
  • Media (30)
  • Civil Rights (29)
  • Barack Obama (28)
  • Law (24)
  • Labor (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Congress (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site