Hi Loren,
The research about starfish is easy to find using google, or you could contact James Corbett directly.
I personally have continued to eat seafood on the average of once a week since 2011. Prices haven't changed noticeably, and it's as readily available as ever. I'm still alive and I haven't been diagnosed with cancer or any other disease. But I'm not telling anyone else what to do.
I agree that RT is big state-controlled media, but sometimes they have their own agenda which might be served by interviewing American alternative media folks. If they called Joe, I'll bet he would pick up the phone. And if he did, it wouldn't even begin to suggest he's a "disinfo agent".
By "addressing climate change" I mean taking the data seriously, instead of dismissing it as propaganda. While it's true that propagandists do take advantage of the climate change data, nevertheless there's a reality behind it.
About the starfish, state of the oceans, radioactivity etc. -- we already had this conversation once before, back in this thread:
http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/links-for-4-13-podcast.1150
And here is what I said:
We don't claim that the oceans are a topic of specialist expertise at this website. All I know, is what I can read about what the experts say.
The Wikipedia article on ocean acidification purports to be a reflection of expert knowledge. It indicates that the pH of the oceans has dropped an average of .11 since pre-industrial times, meaning that the concentration of H+ ions is up 29%. The change has been accelerating. Experts seem genuinely concerned that such a huge change of pH could easily kill algae and plankton, causing the huge decline in fish and mammals that we're seeing.
Whereas, your own articles say the increase in radioactivity on the West Coast is only 7 Bq per cubic meter, a minuscule amount that is not going to hurt anything. Of course the situation is far worse near Japan, but that's not where we're talking about.
You posted the headline of this ENE News article:
http://enenews.com/professors-large...-sea-life-along-fukushima-coast-missing-video
Go and read the article! It clearly says "Researchers have found no evidence of a link between the ongoing Fukushima disaster and the starfish die-off". The article also contains a lot of fog about concerned citizens who don't believe the researchers, but the headline is about what the professors think.
What do researchers say is the problem? A virus! Why are starfish vulnerable to a virus? Researchers don't say, but if I were going to speculate, I think low pH seems much more likely to be the cause, or maybe lack of food, rather than radiation at 7 Bq/m3.
Why is this so important to you, Loren? I'll tell you why: it seems to be a crucial part of your worldview, that the human race of 7 billion people can go right on burning fossil fuels at the rate we're doing now, or at an increasing rate, with no ecological consequences worth mentioning.
You're in denial of any evidence to the contrary.
[....]
I'm convinced that everything is
not OK about nuclear power, and I'm very concerned about the health of life in the oceans. I think that this topic is very worthwhile overall.
But -- what I feel is morally wrong, is telling people that "everything is OK" about CO2 emissions, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), ocean acidification, overfishing, plastics in the ocean, etcetera. You've been saying that it's all a hoax, that it is being foisted on us by elite bankers, part of a de-population agenda, and so forth, and I think that's an oversimplification. These are all real problems, which interact in complex ways with the radioactive contamination problem.
The implication that we need to choose between fossil fuels vs. nuclear power plants is a false dialectic. I don't support nuclear power; on the contrary, I think we need a program to shut down the existing reactors and store away the nuclear waste as safely as possible. It might eventually become feasible to transmute these radioactive substances back into safe long-lived isotopes eventually, if the human race survives that long.
I also feel concerns about the idea that people can save themselves by moving to Fiji. I mean, it might work! I'm willing to believe that you'll improve your odds, or at least live for a few years longer. But I hope we also have something to offer for people who want to stay here and fight for survival.
Email Article 
▶ 7:36
▶ 4:00