(01-02-2014, 08:44 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:(01-02-2014, 09:26 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:(12-30-2013, 10:37 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote: Well, as per testing from this group, it seems the highly migratory Pacific tuna are not affected with radioactive residue.
They tested the tuna for parts per thousands and call that an adequate test??
And what the hell do they mean radioactive "RESIDUE"? They better not find any "residue." That would be catastrophic. They should be doing readings of radioactivity, not looking for residue.
Would not testing for radioactivity in any form still be testing for radioactivity?
In my limited experience to be sure, I've never seen the word "residue" used when it comes to radioactivity which are high energy waves. Residue is a term used for physically detectable substances.
I also bothers me that the equipment only goes to the forth decimal point.
Note also that Japan, Canada and the US has raised the acceptable limits of exposure by a factor of 10 since the Fukushima accident. Why? Radiation hasn't suddenly become 10 times safer.
Pray for me.