|
|
|
|
|
by Groxx
5825 days ago
|
|
Not to mention a large proportion of the water I get daily comes from my food. Much of which can come from far of places like Chile and South Africa, and for my Kiwi's New Zealand. Very good point, I hadn't considered that source until I read this comment. Given that they're measuring the ratio of the isotopes, this kind of "pollution" could probably cause significant noise in any sample. I wouldn't be surprised it it were enough to make pinpointing nearly impossible for many people. It'd be interesting to see an actual study of a few hundred people, and see how accurately it can pinpoint travelers (and their destinations) as opposed to global-munchers. |
|
Someone who eats 'healthily' is going to be much harder to geolocate than someone who eats 'carnivore' style.
I suppose you would look for the strongest source and use that. However I can't help but feel that they're measuring differences in identical isotopes and not relying on unique isotopes (IE of a different mineral) to do the locating. More potassium might mean the North American east coast and more calcium could mean the west is how their method reads to me. This means that they're calculating from the sum of the isotopes.