Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > Then how do you explain the fact that the data you cited showed that
> > some farmed samples had lower levels than some wild samples?
>
> It's true that the very highest levels of contamination
> found in wild fish were slightly higher than the lowest
> levels found in farmed fish. Complete non-overlap of
> these distributions is not a requirement for sayiong
> tthat there's a huge difference in the contamination
> of farmed vs. wild.

And I pointed out the missing data on the sample distribution that makes
your conclusion nothing more than an assumption.