Replies

You're right -- it doesn't say dangerous. However, that was the quite obvious subtext -- what the headline clearly meant to imply. You, however, have said several times, in several ways, that you believe it is dangerous. Clearly, you read the subtext as well -- the difference being that you accept it. Otherwise, we'd have been in complete agreement all along. My point was, and remains, modern instruments can detect levels of radioactive isotopes orders-of-magnitude smaller than levels considered dangerous to human health. I've never questioned the fact that some isotopes were found in tuna, nor the fact that tuna travel around.

Obviously you have not been reading many of the recent ex-skf articles. He is middle of the road. One of the lone voices of sanity on a planet full of apes. He reported the actual raw numbers, unlike other articles that were hyping. The poster of this thread even noted that, but you read right over the obvious tip from the poster. And jumped right into a knee jerk defense of the nuclear industry, when no attack on the industry was even noted. Would have been better to take the Ann Coulter Blue Pill and embraced nuclear radiation. It is good for you and the planet, according to Ann.