Panel challenges Gulf seafood safety all-clear

msnbc ^ | 12/28/10 | Kari Huus

[Nachum]

A New Orleans law firm is challenging government assurances that Gulf Coast seafood is safe to eat in the wake of the BP oil spill, saying it poses “a significant danger to public health.”

It’s a high-stakes tug-of-war that will almost certainly end up in the courts, with two armies of scientists arguing over technical findings that could have real-world impact for seafood consumers and producers.

Citing what the law firm calls a state-of-the-art laboratory analysis, toxicologists, chemists and marine biologists retained by the firm of environmental attorney Stuart Smith contend that the government seafood testing program, which has focused on ensuring the seafood was free of the cancer-causing components of crude oil, has overlooked other harmful elements. And they say that their own testing — examining fewer samples but more comprehensively — shows high levels of hydrocarbons from the BP spill that are associated with liver damage.

[Nachum]

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/

http://www.nachumlist.com/obamaethics.htm

[truthguy]

Lawyers- whoring for money. Nothing unusual here.

Seafood is okay. I'd eat it. Nothing but John Edwards type lawyers trying to exploit the situation.

[exDemMom]

This is why, as a scientific expert, I will never give expert testimony in a lawsuit.

Scientific expert A, paid by the plaintiff attorneys, testifies about findings that are highly favorable to the plaintiff’s case.

Scientific expert B, paid by the defense attorneys, testifies about findings highly favorable to the defense.

At least one of those scientists is lying, just like the attorneys paying them. I could never put myself into such a position.

[Red Badger]

Of course it's safe to eat. It's just bigger now..................

[Wonder Warthog]

Ah me, SOS (same old “stuff”) from the trial lawyers and their eco-leftist allies. Fact 1) tests for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons are far more sensitive and specific than tests for aliphatic hydrocarbons. Fact 2) there CANNOT be aliphatic hydrocarbons present without the concomitant presence of aromatic hydrocarbons. Soooooo.....if they are finding aliphatic HC, and not aromatic, the source is other than the spill, probably from the same source as the “lynx hairs” that were found up near Washington state.

[colorado tanker]

Right on target. This is a plaintiff's tort class action lawyer and the so-called “panel” are the “expert” witnesses he is paying to support his case. But nowhere in the article is that fact mentioned or even the name of his law firm. I guess whores stick together.