Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> That's wrong. I base my statements on the conclusions
> of the authors of abstracts of papers published in
> scientific journals. I have no doubt that their
> conclusions are backed up by the data in the full
> papers. The full papers are not available on-line.
>
> The full papers are available at university research
> libraries, but you are using their lack of availability
> on the net to deny the authors' conclusions, namely
> that the levels of contamination in farmed salmon are
> high, and they are much higher than the levels in
> wild salmon.

I'm not denying anything, that's your claim. I'm stating that I won't
accept *any* opinion / conclusion without seeing the substantiating
data.

>
> To accept your logic, one would also have to accept
> that different research groups in different countries
> adhere to the same practice of stating unsupported
> conclusions in their abstracts -- conclusions which
> are always damning to farmed salmon.

I'm still waiting to see *complete* data. You abstract argument lacks
credability given the fact that providing such critical details as
median values would add barely a sentence to the abstract. One must
therefore be suspicious that this small but critical data was left out
because it doesn't support the conclusion they wanted to reach.

>
> Unless there's a worldwide environmentalist conspiracy
> against farmed salmon, this seems rather unlikely
> to me, although not apparently to you.

There are certainly various interest groups with financial and / or
emotional stakes in it that are touting whatever supports their
position.