[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.