Anyone here familiar with the fact how trace levels of toxins, chemicals and radioactive materials increase in an animal the higher it is in the food chain?
The shrimp has 10%, the little fish who eats the shrimp has 10% + the shrimps 10%, the big fish who eats the little fish has 10% + 20% from the fish and the shrimp and so on..
Humans being at the top of that must be very weary.

Radioactive bluefin tuna crossed the Pacific to US
http://news.yahoo.com/radioactive-bluefin-tuna-crossed-pacific-us-190121826.html
Quote:


BP oil spill toxins from Gulf of Mexico found in eggs of pelicans nesting in Minnesota
http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/bp-oil-spill-toxins-in-gulf-of-mex...
Quote:

Ah, and as a little happy note in all of this. NICNAS, our chemicals regulations body, is self-regulated. They basically sit down and ask the 'interested parties' what they want. Basically any chemical that resembles a chemical that is 'safe' will be allowed into Australia and used.

The same body also nodded to the big companies' suggestion that the threshold of chemicals you could import without fees should be lowered. So people who ordered a bottle of whiteout or shoe polish were suddenly hit with a fee. The big companies are already paying, and love the fact they can squeeze individual importers of these chemicals out of the market. Give that a quick thought next time you go down the chemicals aisle in your local supermarket, or go out to buy that new paint. Just because it's here doesn't mean it's safe.

Loki I was talking about radioactive stuff from those accidents. Chemicals are another kettle of fish (see what i did there?). Australia allows several chemicals in that are banned ion the rest of the world. My theory on why this is is that Howard volunteered us to use up the stockpiles.

SOB

Loki wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:15pm:

You only have to know the amount of chemicals that are legal in Australia and banned almost everywhere else in the world to see their corruption. Even if it is for consumption they will not ban something unless a public spotlight is shun upon the issue.
The safest way to avoid these things is to look at the brands you are buying from. Large corporations put profit first and hence buy cheap and dangerous chemicals. Small Australian companies need to put the customer first to compete with the large corporations and hence will not be as bad in a lot of cases.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:20pm:


Some of those who have worked for NICNAS will probably be going with a Four Corners program if they can get it organised. Keep your eyes peeled, it's a good cause if it has the same effect as the live animal trade program. For one thing, this isn't something too 'abstract' for some, where animal welfare is. This is about the safety of our own family and children.

Loki wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:33pm:
Sounds interesting!
I would like to think they could make a difference but we are literally exposed to millions of bad things, even the biggest bureaucratic attempt wouldn't even solve .1% of the problem.
You would be surprised how naive people can be. Most of the brands that are the biggest criminals in this instance people have been trusting their entire lives. I think people will do the head in the sand thing
But I could be wrong