[wtallis]

I think you've somehow ended up with the exact opposite understanding of what the banana equivalent does is intended for. It serves to call attention to the fact that measurable radioactivity is not necessarily dangerous enough to worry about, and that an actual safety assessment requires more detail than just pointing out that something is radioactive.

Similarly, pointing out that there is a measurable amount of Cs-137 in wildlife in Germany is not a statement about safety. More context and more quantification is required to make it anything other than sensationalism.

[Xylakant]

> It serves to call attention to the fact that measurable radioactivity is not necessarily dangerous enough to worry about

That’s what it may have been created for, but it’s not what it’s used for.

> Similarly, pointing out that there is a measurable amount of Cs-137 in wildlife in Germany is not a statement about safety.

It’s been quantified and researched and the recommendation is still that one should control its intake of game meat and especially mushrooms from these regions because the CS-137 concentration can (depending on the kind) have multiples of the legal maximum (1) It’s perfectly safe to occasionally eat normal amounts’ but dismissing it as bananas is not appropriate.

(1) https://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/ion/umwelt/lebensmittel/pilze-w...

[wtallis]

> It’s perfectly safe to occasionally eat normal amounts’ but dismissing it as bananas is not appropriate.

I'm not seeing anyone here trying to imply that it's as safe as bananas, but I do see a comment that tries to imply that the degree of Cs-137 contamination is about a thousand times higher than safe levels (300 years, ~30 year half-life). As your citation shows, the worst measurements of bioaccumulated Cs-137 in recent years have been merely 2-3x safe levels, with older outliers having been 10x safe levels.

[Xylakant]

> but I do see a comment that tries to imply that the degree of Cs-137 contamination is about a thousand times higher than safe levels (300 years, ~30 year half-life)

That’s not what the comment says. It says that it will take 300 years for all the CS to vanish. But even by your interpretation, a response along the lines “This is a perfectly safe amount of radiation by all standards (or, as my comment: This is perfectly safe for limited consumption) would have been substantially better than pulling out the BED and trying to shut the discussion down with it. Note that the line you quote from my comment includes a wordplay on the BED (“bananas”)

[wtallis]

> It says that it will take 300 years for all the CS to vanish.

Yeah, and that's an obviously wrong statement when taken literally. So which is the more reasonable interpretation: that he was trying to say that the danger from the Cs-137 would take 300 years to vanish, or that he was providing a number that's not just wrong, but also irrelevant and misleading?

[Xylakant]

Look, you’re moving goalposts. I criticize the usage of the BED in trying to make that point. I don’t intend to discuss whether the dosage is dangerous or not, or whether the point that levels still are substantially increased was well made or even appropriate.