Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014) • Hacker News Board

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#131

Post by godelski » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 8:26 AM UTC

dEnigma wrote: post #112

godelski wrote: post #51

> including some [wild boar] bagged as far away as Germany—continue to show abnormal and dangerous levels of radiation. This really needs to stop. I remember doing the calculation a few years back due to another HN post (and the German obsession around boar) and you'd need to eat roughly 0.55lbs (0.25kg) of the most radioactive boar you could find every day or 3lbs (1.4kg) of the median. That is to just hit EU radiat…

> you'd need to eat roughly 0.55lbs (0.25kg) of the most radioactive boar you could find every day or 3lbs (1.4kg) of the median. You'd need to eat that much for what to happen? Radiation sickness (since you mention that afterwards)? I'm pretty sure people are more concerned with increased cancer risk than that. Not saying that this is a valid concern here either, just that radiation sickness is on the far end of a s…

> 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.

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#132

Post by hef19898 » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 8:34 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #131

dEnigma wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you'd need to eat roughly 0.55lbs (0.25kg) of the most radioactive boar you could find every day or 3lbs (1.4kg) of the median. You'd need to eat that much for what to happen? Radiation sickness (since you mention that afterwards)? I'm pretty sure people are more concerned with increased cancer risk than that. Not saying that this is a valid concern here either, just that radiation sickness is on the far end of a s…

> 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, w…

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.

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#133

Post by sparsely » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 8:34 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #51

> including some [wild boar] bagged as far away as Germany—continue to show abnormal and dangerous levels of radiation. This really needs to stop. I remember doing the calculation a few years back due to another HN post (and the German obsession around boar) and you'd need to eat roughly 0.55lbs (0.25kg) of the most radioactive boar you could find every day or 3lbs (1.4kg) of the median. That is to just hit EU radiat…

It's a good point that the radioactive fallout is less bad (in some ways) for certain concepts of nature than sharing the space with modern people.

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#134

Post by dEnigma » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 8:39 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #131

dEnigma wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you'd need to eat roughly 0.55lbs (0.25kg) of the most radioactive boar you could find every day or 3lbs (1.4kg) of the median. You'd need to eat that much for what to happen? Radiation sickness (since you mention that afterwards)? I'm pretty sure people are more concerned with increased cancer risk than that. Not saying that this is a valid concern here either, just that radiation sickness is on the far end of a s…

> 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, w…

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.

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#135

Post by pvaldes » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 8:40 AM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #67

pvaldes wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All forests in the planet follow basically the same rule. The more time left undisturbed, the more water will fix in the area. Top ecosystems in the chain have typically plenty of water. Lower forms have less and less water and are more unstable. "There are huge wildfires because no water in the area". This is a lie that we tell ourselves. There is not water in the area because wildfires. Many of this fires were deli…

There are a number of species whose seeds don't germinate without wildfire. Not all regional climates are equal.

Of course, but they will not appear, or be residual in the climax of the ecosystems. Its strategy is live fast and leave a beautiful charred corpse. The normal trend in this planet is to replace this opportunists by other species when the ecosystems mature. See "theory of stress" in ecology.

In short a little stress is good, for both ecosystems and humans, (it develops a better immune system). But too much stress is catastrofic, and this is the current situation with the "clean forest" mantra.

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#136

Post by anankaie » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 8:47 AM UTC

JodieBenitez wrote: post #121

samplatt wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wood in today's society needs chemical treatment or physical isolation before we use it a construction material.

Only because we use a lot of pine wood with low density (because cheap&fast). Not all wood is like that: Red cedar, douglas, larch, acacia and more... Where I live, chestnut is even used for roof tiling.

And then there is cork

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#137

Post by JodieBenitez » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 9:02 AM UTC

anankaie wrote: post #136

JodieBenitez wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because we use a lot of pine wood with low density (because cheap&fast). Not all wood is like that: Red cedar, douglas, larch, acacia and more... Where I live, chestnut is even used for roof tiling.

And then there is cork

Indeed... still used for wine bottles. I can't say I'm too happy with it though, given the amount of bottles spoiled by bad cork.

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#138

Post by godelski » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 9:07 AM UTC

_ph_ wrote: post #125

godelski wrote: post #51

> including some [wild boar] bagged as far away as Germany—continue to show abnormal and dangerous levels of radiation. This really needs to stop. I remember doing the calculation a few years back due to another HN post (and the German obsession around boar) and you'd need to eat roughly 0.55lbs (0.25kg) of the most radioactive boar you could find every day or 3lbs (1.4kg) of the median. That is to just hit EU radiat…

I just had an exchange with a local hunter who claims that 60% of the shot boars are discarded and deposited for being over the radiation limits for food. If you feel happy eating them, please contact some Bavarian hunters to get some cheap meat.

I need to clarify, the calculations I used are based on 2,857 Bq/kg. The threshold for Germany is 600 Bq/kg. I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised that the German government sets high levels of safety. Japan put limits as 100 Bq/kg. The limits don't change the danger levels.

Here's a study you may be interested in[0]

> The minimum and maximum radiocesium concentrations were 87.1 Bq/kg FM and 8,120 Bq/kg FM, respectively, with a median concentration of 450 Bq/kg

> If the residents consume the wild boar meat as a meat source once, the median committed effective dose was in the range of 0.062 to 0.30 μSv/day, with a maximum value of 5.4 μSv/day. In Japan, the natural effective dose from food ingestion was estimated to be 99 µSv/y, which was 0.27 µSv/day

> The committed effective dose for one-time ingestion of wild boar meat could be considered extremely low for residents in Tomioka.

You can use this information to calculate risk. Let's combine based on these numbers instead of mine. EU dosage limit = 20mSv/yr. We'll subtract 2.1mSv for average German dosage[1], leaving us 17.9. Taking the higher dosage from this study (13.5x German thresholds) giving us 3314.8 "meat sources" to reach the limit (defined at the bottom by median pork consumption, maximum ~50g/day). Let's then say they eat 3 servings per meal, eat 3 meals a day, and do so for an entire year. Their dosage will be 19.84mSv/yr (17.739 from the 8,120 Bq/kg boar). Your relative increase in lifetime chance of cancer at 20mSv protracted radiation exposure is approximately 0%. It is approximately 0% even at 40mSv protracted. Your risk of getting cancer due to eating that much meat is well above 0, since a single source here is roughly 50g (the recommended limit for daily consumption of red meat) and you're eating 9x that (450g/day). Your risk of cardiovascular issues are even higher.

Were I to live in Germany, I'd appreciate the cheap pork.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7283223/

[1] https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/natural-radiati...

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#139

Post by godelski » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 9:14 AM UTC

dEnigma wrote: post #134

godelski wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, w…

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 beg…

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.

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#140

Post by godelski » Tue, Jun 06, 2023, 9:21 AM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #132

godelski wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, w…

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.

> 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.