Toxicity is toxicity and studies relating to concentrations tell us what the effects are at those concentrations. When it says it's not toxic, it means it's not toxic. What first glance at data are you talking about? Your source is not raw data, your source is interpreted from raw data; therefore, it is information. Information you should be disseminating not arguing against.

P.S. The 1 quotation from a scientific source you have referenced does not dispute anything I have said. In fact, it supports it. I implore you to PLEASE PLEASE search for more information if you recall that you saw something about nitrate toxicity in fish. If nothing more, it will help you learn.

P.P.S. I do get heated about these things when I am 99.999% confident about things. That doesn't mean I'm always right, but in this case I feel this is very remedial (like you said) except you have it wrong. If somehow the vast amount of scientific literature I have reviewed is all wrong, then by all means please make your case. I just don't see how a fact commonly accepted in the scientific community, which is not under debate or is controversial, is something you wish to argue against... anyway... let me know what you think bud...