3 ms·

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 under

by hef19898 3y ago

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 3y ago
> 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 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    > 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

godelski 3y ago

> 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 3y ago
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 3y ago
  > 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