But they're so delicious!. Who cares if they make my glow?. ABSOLUTELY EVERY ONE" - ill, OUT OF ill, - BLUFFIN TUNA TESTED IN CALIFORNIA WATERS CONTAMINATED WIT But they're so delicious! Who cares if they make my glow? ABSOLUTELY EVERY ONE" - ill OUT OF BLUFFIN TUNA TESTED IN CALIFORNIA WATERS CONTAMINATED WIT
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (51)
[ 51 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
40 comments displayed.
#3 - therealtjthemedic
Reply +56
(06/23/2013) [-]
******* fifteen?
That's ********, you need a bigger test input.
If i picked 15 people from earth, and they were chinese, then I could say all humans are chinese.
#9 to #3 - jalthelas
-2
has deleted their comment [-]
#11 to #9 - anon
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
That probably seemed more clever in your head.
#37 to #11 - mrloki ONLINE
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
can you tell us what jalthelas was saying on his deleted comment ? I really want to have a motive to despise him instead of just despising him out of habit
#43 to #37 - jalthelas
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
I attempted to make a joke about the Holocaust.

It did sound better in my head.

I said something like,

"Seriously! If I put 15 Jews in a concentration camp, and they all died, then I could say 6 million of them died, too."
#44 to #43 - jalthelas
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
There, a fresh new comment to thumb down.

Also this one, if you're feeling adventurous.
#14 to #3 - Tvfreek
Reply +3
(06/24/2013) [-]
Well, the average human is a chinese man...
#23 to #14 - martycamp
Reply -3
(06/24/2013) [-]
Let's see, shall we? The population of China is estimated at 1,353,821,000. For simplicity's sake, we'll assume that they're all Chinese, and that there is a 50/50 split between men and women.

That means there are 676,910,500 Chinese men. Considering that the Earth's population is estimated at 7.093 billion, that means the average human is NOT a Chinese man
#26 to #23 - griphingly
Reply +2
(06/24/2013) [-]
That's true if you split the world into chinese people and not-chinese people...
#28 to #23 - aahrg
Reply +1
(06/24/2013) [-]
yeah but it's not white and chinese, it's white, brown, slightly darker brown, slightly lighter brown, black, blacker, blackest, chinese, and those faggots in south america.

there are more chinese males than any other race/gender mix in the world.
#4 to #3 - threadz
Reply +9
(06/23/2013) [-]
We aren't all Chinese?
#6 - derak
Reply +10
(06/23/2013) [-]
So 15 were tested, and how many bluefin tuna are there in the coast of California again?
#29 to #6 - enpootis
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
>fire penguin
>fire penguin
#32 to #6 - captnnorway
Reply +4
(06/24/2013) [-]
15 less than before.
#38 to #32 - lieutenantshitface **User deleted account**
+2
has deleted their comment [-]
#8 to #6 - noamk
Reply +13
(06/23/2013) [-]
not nearly as meany as there should be.
#2 - jimjimmerson
Reply +9
(06/23/2013) [-]
Oh sure blame fukushima.
Oh sure blame fukushima.
#12 to #2 - thenez ONLINE
Reply +4
(06/24/2013) [-]
this, they blow up nukes in the pacific all the time.
#17 to #12 - jimjimmerson
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
I'm sure it's not what it looks like.
#27 to #12 - PFSquirrel
Reply -1
(06/24/2013) [-]
Unless "they" is best Korea, then no.
#18 - salihzzz
Reply +5
(06/24/2013) [-]
i'm eating tuna right now
i'm eating tuna right now
#46 to #18 - sadistikal
Reply 0
(06/25/2013) [-]
Congratulations, my good sir! Expect to be able to type faster in the future, because you will soon be the proud owner of a third hand.
#16 - slyve
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
This image has expired
It'd be interesting to know just how much they are irradiated. Everything is radiation contaminated to some point, even humans are radioactive (at least i think we are, I'm not 100% sure about that, though) but our cells regenerate anyway, so unless it's quite a load of radiation we get in a short amount of time, we can just walk it off.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
#19 to #16 - Deanoss
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
i too would like to know the answer to this
#22 to #19 - Shmooglavoue
Reply +3
(06/24/2013) [-]
Background radiation exists because most objects are incredibly slightly irradiated.

Nuclear radiation is essentially isotopes (partial atoms) flying around. An isotope has a positive or negative charge depending upon whether it's missing a proton or electron. This charge makes them want to pull off pieces of other atoms in order to complete itself, and they can do so when they come into contact. This causes damage that can only be detected on an atomic scale, which is why radiation is impossible to detect without a Geiger counter (which measures the number of isotopes in the air). Technically, there are always going to be a small number of isotopes flying around that our bodies just deal with, since they are such large complex and self-regulating systems. It takes a significant number of stray isotopes to do lasting damage.

Nuclear power plants and atomic bombs cause radiation because the process of Nuclear Fission involves slamming atoms into each other, causing a chain reaction when they break and sending the pieces flying. Much more fallout than what happens naturally on earth (at least the surface).

The term "radiation" can also refer to the expulsion of energy, such as UV light from the sun. The term was used to describe nuclear fallout before it was well understood, since it "seemed" to be giving off energy when it is actually giving off incomplete atoms. Try not to get the two confused.

BTW, I'm not a chemist, I'm just reciting what I remember from high school and independent studies of radiation. So any real chemists are free to correct me if I've made an error.
#48 to #22 - anon
Reply 0
(07/01/2013) [-]
i am not a chemist either but I recently had a course that focused on nuclear energy and radiation. I would like to point out that while much of what you said is in fact correct regarding human biology, your explanation of nuclear radiation is pretty far off. isotopes are not partial atoms they are atoms with varying numbers of neutrons. some of these isotopes are unstable and tend to decay by a variety of means (alpha, beta+, beta-, and gamma) resulting in the atom eventually reaching a stable state. the subatomic particles given off by these decays is what we refer to as radiation.
regarding the method that nuclear power plants use to produce energy (at least the design I was taught), a neutron is generally accelerated by some means into a fuel matrix resulting in fission, the fission produces several smaller atoms which may or may not be unstable. if an atom is stable the process ends for that atom, but if the atom is unstable it undergoes decay and releases more energy.
#49 to #48 - Shmooglavoue
Reply 0
(07/01/2013) [-]
Thanks for the correction. I was right about the sub-atomic particles (what I referred to as partial atoms) being the source of radiation. I just used the term isotopes incorrectly it seems.
#25 to #22 - slyve
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Thanks for the explanation!
#20 to #16 - dragontamers
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
I think it's heat radiation or something like UV, I don't really know but we definately emit some kind of radiation.
#21 to #20 - dragontamers
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
*definitely    
I'm constantly doing that.
*definitely
I'm constantly doing that.
#45 to #21 - cumbersome
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
At least you catch it yourself. No one is perfect
#30 to #16 - whatley
Reply +5
(06/24/2013) [-]
Yes, we are radioactive somewhat. Due to us being carbon based life, we contain small amounts of Carbon-14, which decays through β+ decay, emitting radiation.
#7 - upyoursnumbnuts
Reply +4
(06/23/2013) [-]
So now they're tasty and the left overs can be used as a night light.
#1 - takenpie
Reply +3
(06/23/2013) [-]
FIFTEEN TUNA OOOOOH NOOOOOOOOOO!
#31 - mmajunkie
Reply +2
(06/24/2013) [-]
The one tuna not contaminated.
The one tuna not contaminated.
#39 to #31 - lokiwins
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
But it says all of them...
#40 to #39 - sparkytwl
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
yes but if you look they took a ridiculously tiny sample size of 15 then made a judgment saying all are
#41 to #40 - lokiwins
Reply 0
(06/24/2013) [-]
But going by that theory you could say that there would most likely be more than a single uncontaminated tuna.
#10 - szymonf
Reply +2
(06/24/2013) [-]
but not at hazardous levels.
and you failed to mention that these tuna migrate from japan to the west coast of N.A
#47 - ScottishMinor
Reply 0
(06/25/2013) [-]
Maybe it's not just the tuna...
[ 51 comments ]
Leave a comment