Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cesium-soaked truffles may keep fallout in an environment’s food web

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: Cesium-soaked truffles may keep fallout in an environment’s food web

#31

Post by pgeorgi »

fullspectrumdev wrote: post #26
tcfhgj wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, I don't want to eat it. But I don't want to inhale it either.

Incinerators for waste have much stronger emission controls/scrubbers than power plants (eg the coal burning shit the Germans love) for… some reason I don’t actually understand.

Emission limits for incinerators for waste: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bimschv_17_2013/BJNR10440...

Emission limits for coal power plants: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bimschv_13_2021/__5.html (and a few other places in that ordinance)

Some are higher, some are lower. I don't understand the rationale either, but "much stronger controls" isn't universally true.

Re: Cesium-soaked truffles may keep fallout in an environment’s food web

#32

Post by z_ack »

I'm wondering why there is no measurement, no data about the radiation detected. All in our environment is a little bit radioactive, it's called background radiation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#:~:text=B.... A scientific article without any reference to measurements or at least a comparison with background radiation is criticisable. I'll say the obvious but, it the legal limit is near to the background radiation level, all became not safe. Anyway, what about the truffles and other mushrooms of that region ? For logic deduction, they should be unsafe, too.

Re: Cesium-soaked truffles may keep fallout in an environment’s food web

#33

Post by Gibbon1 »

fullspectrumdev wrote: post #26
tcfhgj wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, I don't want to eat it. But I don't want to inhale it either.

Incinerators for waste have much stronger emission controls/scrubbers than power plants (eg the coal burning shit the Germans love) for… some reason I don’t actually understand.

Incinerators burn stuff that's way nastier than coal. Like vinyl chloride.

Re: Cesium-soaked truffles may keep fallout in an environment’s food web

#34

Post by akolbe »

z_ack wrote: post #32

I'm wondering why there is no measurement, no data about the radiation detected. All in our environment is a little bit radioactive, it's called background radiation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#:~:text=B... . A scientific article without any reference to measurements or at least a comparison with background radiation is criticisable. I'll say the obvious but, it the legal limit is near to the…

For reference, the underlying study[1] says:

Our samples (2019–2021) range from 370 to 15,000 Bq·kg–1 137Cs, thus exceeding the regulatory limits (600 Bq·kg–1) by a factor of up to 25.

[1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.3c03565

Re: Cesium-soaked truffles may keep fallout in an environment’s food web

#36

Post by badpun »

pgeorgi wrote: post #8
boxed wrote: post #2

I just by default doubt any anti-nuclear thing that comes out of Germany. We do not need Germanys CO2 emissions. That's the big problem here. And the amount of radioactivity spewed into the atmosphere by German coal plants is way bigger than cold war era weapon testing.

The source for Germany's CO2 emissions is a pro-coal-miner stance, not an anti-nuclear position: Germany happily threw away a 120k workers strong photovoltaics industry while protecting a 40k workers strong coal mining industry. The anti-nuclear position comes from radioactive boars and even more-so from the fuck up that is the Jülich experimental reactor, a "safe by design" system that by now took 40 years of mainte…

> (Case in point: the anti-nuclear movement in Germany started in the 1970s. Unless you believe in time travel, those big incidents at most fueled the flames)

The whole green movement in the Germany was co-created by KGB, in order to hamper West Germany's economic development.

Re: Cesium-soaked truffles may keep fallout in an environment’s food web

#37

Post by civilitty »

exabrial wrote: post #35

Once again: from a weapons program, _not_ a power generation program... yet power generation gets all the flak and are currently being torn down in Germany, while... they still have nuclear weapons.

While Germany does host US nuclear weapons through a nuclear sharing agreement [1], it doesn't have any of it's own and can't use them directly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing#NATO

Re: Cesium-soaked truffles may keep fallout in an environment’s food web

#38

Post by alexey-salmin »

pgeorgi wrote: post #8
boxed wrote: post #2

I just by default doubt any anti-nuclear thing that comes out of Germany. We do not need Germanys CO2 emissions. That's the big problem here. And the amount of radioactivity spewed into the atmosphere by German coal plants is way bigger than cold war era weapon testing.

The source for Germany's CO2 emissions is a pro-coal-miner stance, not an anti-nuclear position: Germany happily threw away a 120k workers strong photovoltaics industry while protecting a 40k workers strong coal mining industry. The anti-nuclear position comes from radioactive boars and even more-so from the fuck up that is the Jülich experimental reactor, a "safe by design" system that by now took 40 years of mainte…

> Politics and industry have demonstrated that they can't ensure safe nuclear operation in Germany. USSR (1986) and Japan (2011) just drove the point home that it's not a specific German failing.

Politics and industry have repeatedly demonstrated that nuclear power generation is one of safest industries in the history of humanity. One terawatt-hour of nuclear causes on average one premature death in 33 years, even safer than wind and hydro.

Re: Cesium-soaked truffles may keep fallout in an environment’s food web

#39

Post by alexey-salmin »

captainmuon wrote: post #14
boxed wrote: post #2

I just by default doubt any anti-nuclear thing that comes out of Germany. We do not need Germanys CO2 emissions. That's the big problem here. And the amount of radioactivity spewed into the atmosphere by German coal plants is way bigger than cold war era weapon testing.

The trade-off Germany chose is not between using nuclear vs. producing more CO2. It is between using nuclear vs. reducing economic activity (and the latter is IMHO very dubious - despite many warnings, Germany is able to procure enough energy just fine). It's not like we need a fixed amount of energy X , and have to choose how to get it. Rather, we say we want to discontinue fossil at a certain fixed pace, and say, O…

That is simply false, both short-term and long-term.

Short-term they explicitly chose produce more co2 emissions in 2022, not to decrease economic activity. They "procure enough energy just fine" by burning coal.

Long-term Germany's co2 emissions are more than 2-2.5x of France, both annual and cumulative. That is THE result of their anti-nuclear strategy.

Post reply on HN