[godelski]

> You'd need to eat that much for what to happen? Radiation sickness?

No, to hit EU dosage limits (20mSv). Which still is below actual risk of cancer. This is a small risk if taken all at once (acute exposure) but not found when protracted. For example, UK workers who consistently got 30-40mSv/yr had no statistical increase of cancer. So the number is 0% increase in cancer risk due to radiation exposure.

But again, we're talking about eating an __absurd__ amount of HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE boar you can find (well above thresholds), DAILY, and for an entire year. Do you know what 3lbs of pork looks like? The volume is 9 x 5 x 4 inches and is 24 servings. You're eating that daily, and it is the most radioactive boar you can find. It is not only an absurd amount of food, but also unrealistic to even source with high levels of effort (*most* radioactive, not average).

But here's the thing, consuming that meat DOES result in a multiple percent increase in risk of getting cancer. The problem is that this is due to eating red meat and the risk would be the same if you were sourcing non-radioactive boar. You're focusing on the wrong thing if you're concerned about your health and safety.

What part of "eating 3lbs of pork a day is going to cause your heart to explode" is not being understood here? You're clearly not the only one that is missing this. I'm not sure how I'm being unclear.

[dEnigma]

The thing that is unclear in your original comment is exactly what I was mentioning in mine. You didn't write what kind of threshold you were calculating here (which together with the bottom part of the comment made me think it was about actual radiation sickness). Now that you've made clear it's about the EU dosage limits I can easily follow. As I've said, there is a world of difference between where cancer risk begins, and where you can expect acute radiation sickness, and if you'd been calculating the latter there could potentially still be a significant (cancer) risk with much less ridiculous consumption numbers.

[godelski]

I apologize, I thought you were being snarky. There's a few people in here that are not asking serious questions. I sourced a study on boar in Fukushima and ran similar calculations on that if you're interested. The conclusion is still similar: you need to eat an amount of pork that puts you at serious risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer from red meat before you have an increased risk of cancer due to the radiation content of the pork.

Acute radiation sickness is pretty difficult to acquire through protracted exposure, as by definition acute radiation sickness is acute: short term. 10mSv in a millisecond (acute) is dangerous, 10mSv over a year is perfectly safe.

[dEnigma]

No worries. Re-reading your original comment I also realized that the quote you begin with talks about "dangerous levels" of radiation, which I suppose should prime one for the fact that you were talking about unsafe exposure levels. Regarding the "acute", I think I mixed up my previous "actual radiation sickness" with the "acute" in ARS there. You're right of course about it normally being used for short-term effects. So that would be another hint that what you were calculating was not the threshold for radiation sickness.

[hef19898]

You do realize that all those radiation doses do add up? I mean it is not as if boar is the only radioactive source, is it? You really seem to struggle to understand how limits for harmful sunstances are defined, and how those substances affect us and the environment.

[godelski]

> radiation doses do add up

Yes and no. Acute exposure is not the same as protracted exposure. 10mSv in a microsecond is a vastly different risk than 10mSv over a year.

Before you make such bold and obtuse claims, you may consider that this 20mSv safety limit includes radiation workers, who we haven't measured as having increased risk of cancer (even when the limits were higher). The relative risk starts around 50mSv but is still exceptionally low.

Stop assuming things that you can't be bothered to verify. If you're going to chase me around comments you should at least make a reasonable attempt to be somewhat accurate. Just stop pulling stuff out of your ass.

[hef19898]

I am not assuming anything. Facts so far: boar in Bavaria is exceeding radiation limits for nutrition and can thus not be used (differs through out Bavaria of course), these limits have been put in place for good reason (I do not open a discission about the validity of safe thresholds for potetially dangerous stuff) and that this problem is directly linked to Chernobyl.

Your argument was, I summarize, that is not bad, the thresholds are way to low anyway and don't hurt. In short, we should increase safe thresholds and move on, right? That's how stuff works so, and it is a repetition of the arguments all the VW apologists used to downplay the scandal. That line of argument is dishonest, IMHO.

We can continue to discuss all those other points I raised, or the official investigation reports. Otherwise we turn im circles, and I don't have time for that.

[godelski]

> Your argument was, I summarize, that is not bad, the thresholds are way to low anyway and don't hurt

Yes

> we should increase safe thresholds and move on, right?

Words you put in my mouth