You continue to ignore reality. The above is an example. If 35% of the Committee disagrees there is in fact "severe disagreement". That does *not* change the fact that the Committee supports (with a landslide 65% majority) the issue.
In official reports the IWC Science Committee *has* supported not just the Japanese research program, but the lethal portion too.
See IWC document 49-4, "Report of the Scientific Committee, 1997" and document "Report of the Workshop to Review the Japanese Whale Research Programme under Special Permit for North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN), Tokyo, 17-10 February 2000".
"JARPA has already made a major contribution to understanding of certain biological parameters."
"the meeting noted that there were non-lethal methods available but that logistics and the abundance of minke whales in the relevant Area probably precluded their successful application."
I would point out that virtually *all* of your claims are, in the areas that I am informed about, just a poorly structured as the above. You continually mix statements and ignore context to arrive at illogical conclusions that are in fact *not* supported by the evidence you suggest it came from. I cannot, of course, verify that you are doing the same with the issues involving Japanese national politics, but clearly there is no reason to believe you are any more correct there than elsewhere.
Here is another example, much like the one above, from another of your posted articles. The dishonesty you are willing to tolerate is clear, and it is disgusting!
...
Only a few cows have had mad cow disease but every whale is oily and rich with things that are unhealthy for you.
factsheetsonwhaling-humanhealthconcernsofwhalemeat.html
What does that web page *actually* say? And is it accurate???
"Baleen whales, such as minkes, feed lower on the food chain. As a result, their tissues generally contain lower levels of contaminants."
An accurate statement. Which was then immediately followed by an ambiguous statement that attempted to deny the accuracy of the above fact.
"Nonetheless, tests of the blubber of minke whales from the north Pacific have shown unsafe levels of pesticides and PCBs."
Hence, if you can find one single Minke whale in the entire North Pacific, no baleen whale anywhere is healthy!
And *you* sucked on that one, and are attempting to repeat the performance here.
The *facts* are that Minke meat from the Japanese research project is indeed *far* more healthy for human consumption than is the average beef. That has *nothing* to do with mad cow disease, however. It does specifically have to do with the type of fat in beef (unhealthy) as opposed the type of fat in marine mammals (healthy).
(I've had cardiac bypbutt surgery. My cardiologist has advised that I reduce to an absolute minimum the amount of beef in my diet, and has suggested that marine mammals are a very good subsbreastute. He did, however, laugh and suggest that some people get carried away with the good taste of both seal oil and whale blubber, and told me, with a grin, to watch the calories.)
The Japanese government is doing Japanese people a good service if they are championing whale meat instead of beef for a healtier diet for Japanese children and adults.
--
