4 ms·

The levels don't seem huge, and you need to be a fairly committed consumer of wild mushrooms to see a effect comparable to regular flying. But it is interestin

by b800h 4y ago

The levels don't seem huge, and you need to be a fairly committed consumer of wild mushrooms to see a effect comparable to regular flying. But it is interesting to note that the relevant consumer laws prevent the sale of eg. derived wild boar products from affected animals with similar contamination, which must be doing wonders for the French wild boar meat trade.

zeebeecee 4y ago
The amount of radiation from regular flying probably has no risk as well. Aircrew have higher risk for certain types of cancers, but it's not clear if radiation plays a role in that. And of course they spend way more time on air than any regular airline customer. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aircrew/cancer.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aircrew/cancer.html
- atoav 4y ago
  Well and as anything radiation it is always a question of how you come into touch with it. E.g. getting hit by radiation briefly from the outside is different than having a radiation source inside your body for potentially ever (heavy metals are known to do this). I am not sure how it is with mushrooms, but as someone who grew up in the Austrian South with similar laws regulating mushrooms I think this was the reasoning. So not that the radiation dose of one of those mushrooms would be problematic, but that it contains radiating particles that happily enter, but not so happily exit your body.
- throw827474737 4y ago
  And what is the alternative explanation for the higher risk?
  - ta123456789 4y ago
    Circadian rhythm disruption: working across many timezones, lack of sleep, etc. could be one explanation. Stress could also be a factor?
throw827474737 4y ago
Contamination and aggregation via ingestion of cs137 is very different to exposure to radiation. So can one really compare them like that, is the scale aligned?
- yokaze 4y ago
  Yes, that's the intent of the unit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert

by b800h 4y ago

zeebeecee 4y ago

The amount of radiation from regular flying probably has no risk as well. Aircrew have higher risk for certain types of cancers, but it's not clear if radiation plays a role in that. And of course they spend way more time on air than any regular airline customer. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aircrew/cancer.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aircrew/cancer.html

atoav 4y ago
Well and as anything radiation it is always a question of how you come into touch with it. E.g. getting hit by radiation briefly from the outside is different than having a radiation source inside your body for potentially ever (heavy metals are known to do this). I am not sure how it is with mushrooms, but as someone who grew up in the Austrian South with similar laws regulating mushrooms I think this was the reasoning. So not that the radiation dose of one of those mushrooms would be problematic, but that it contains radiating particles that happily enter, but not so happily exit your body.
throw827474737 4y ago
And what is the alternative explanation for the higher risk?
- ta123456789 4y ago
  Circadian rhythm disruption: working across many timezones, lack of sleep, etc. could be one explanation. Stress could also be a factor?

throw827474737 4y ago

Contamination and aggregation via ingestion of cs137 is very different to exposure to radiation. So can one really compare them like that, is the scale aligned?

yokaze 4y ago
Yes, that's the intent of the unit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert