The human era is geologically recorded with plastics and radioactive isotopes in our bones. The CO2-CH4 concentration spike is the cherry on top. Meanwhile, the cults continue to incantate to the god(s) as in the neolithic era. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_anachronism
> Cesium seeps very slowly through the soil, sometimes only one millimeter per year, he said. Deer truffles, located between 20 and 40 centimeters, have already absorbed the “older” cesium from six decades ago. The “younger” cesium from Chernobyl has likely not fully integrated or is just now integrating at the soil depths where the mushrooms are located.
> But it could be bad news when the cesium from Chernobyl does reach the mushrooms — radioactivity levels could go up higher. “There’s a chance that the levels will actually go up instead of going down as everybody anticipated,” Steinhauser said.
> But Steinhauser said humans, including wild boar consumers, probably don’t have anything to worry about because they would have to eat “insane” amounts of the animal to show meaningful amounts of radioactive material. Plus, wild boar available through stores and official channels in Germany are tested and regulated.
They aren't tested, because previous testing showed it is no problem. Not even in Bavaria all boar is tested, only certain rwgions. Even there so, one couod make the case of not testing and just disposing hunted boar as it almost completely unsave to eat (above regulated thresholds).
The fallout landed in very random patches depending on weather literally at the time of the catastrophe. It is not really a function of distance alone.
My understanding is, some areas of Germany got more of the pollutants than say average for Poland.
>> Calculating the ratio of cesium isotopes in the samples, they found that nuclear weapons testing accounted for 10 to 68 percent of the contamination.
Using that to say boars in Austria and Southern Germany are not radioactively contaminated because of Chernobyl is a huge stretch, one not even the quoted scientist makes...
And that
>> (Interestingly, the deer do not fancy deer truffles so much despite the name.)
explains why deer aee much less contaminated round here. Also, the truffles in question arw somewhere 20-40 cm underground. Caesium seeps slowly, the article says only one millimeter per year (cudos for WP to use metric units). The article does follow that by claiming the truffpes absorbed the 60 year old caesoum by now, while the one from Chernobyl only makes its way there ny now (Chernobyl was roughly 40 years ago, assuming only one mm per year wpupd mean not even the testing caesoum would be at tjose depths by now.). I'll go with tue scientists quote, that says that even without Chernobyl, some boar might be unsave to eat today. Because, you now, somewhere between 90 and 12 % of the contamination does come from Chernobyl (or rather it is caused by reactor-related caesoum isotopes, so fair to assume it is mainly from Chernobyl).
Another quote:
>> Some of those differences may be because of localized factors, such as winds, animal migration or subsurface water flow.
No shit. If we want boar, we have to go all of 20 km north, were it is all save, save enough to not even require testing. Locally, hunters want to be paid upfront to hunt boar because they cannot sell it profitably (every boar requires testing, paid for by the hunter, and the 88% number of unsave meat samples frol the article doesn't surprise me at all).
So, the whole news is: radioactive contamination in Auszrian and Bavarian boar is not only caised by Chernobyl. Intresting, for sure. One fact the article ignores, it might be in the study, is the fact we didn't have any nuclear weapons testing done nearby. So, why is the whole nuclear boars thing so prevelant only arpund here, in places we cn clearly trace fallout from Chernobyl to (througj weather patterns at the time)? All in all, a really, really bad science journalism article... Lazy, bad arguments, not cotation of sources (instead we have interview quotes, two of the three people interviewed weren't even part of the study!).
[+] [-] dredmorbius|2 years ago|reply
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37350943>
2 days ago, 45 comments.
[+] [-] ed_westin|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benj111|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnben|2 years ago|reply
> But it could be bad news when the cesium from Chernobyl does reach the mushrooms — radioactivity levels could go up higher. “There’s a chance that the levels will actually go up instead of going down as everybody anticipated,” Steinhauser said.
> But Steinhauser said humans, including wild boar consumers, probably don’t have anything to worry about because they would have to eat “insane” amounts of the animal to show meaningful amounts of radioactive material. Plus, wild boar available through stores and official channels in Germany are tested and regulated.
[+] [-] choeger|2 years ago|reply
Could it be that they simply aren't tested elsewhere?
[+] [-] hef19898|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rich_sasha|2 years ago|reply
My understanding is, some areas of Germany got more of the pollutants than say average for Poland.
[+] [-] hef19898|2 years ago|reply
>> Calculating the ratio of cesium isotopes in the samples, they found that nuclear weapons testing accounted for 10 to 68 percent of the contamination.
Using that to say boars in Austria and Southern Germany are not radioactively contaminated because of Chernobyl is a huge stretch, one not even the quoted scientist makes...
And that
>> (Interestingly, the deer do not fancy deer truffles so much despite the name.)
explains why deer aee much less contaminated round here. Also, the truffles in question arw somewhere 20-40 cm underground. Caesium seeps slowly, the article says only one millimeter per year (cudos for WP to use metric units). The article does follow that by claiming the truffpes absorbed the 60 year old caesoum by now, while the one from Chernobyl only makes its way there ny now (Chernobyl was roughly 40 years ago, assuming only one mm per year wpupd mean not even the testing caesoum would be at tjose depths by now.). I'll go with tue scientists quote, that says that even without Chernobyl, some boar might be unsave to eat today. Because, you now, somewhere between 90 and 12 % of the contamination does come from Chernobyl (or rather it is caused by reactor-related caesoum isotopes, so fair to assume it is mainly from Chernobyl).
Another quote:
>> Some of those differences may be because of localized factors, such as winds, animal migration or subsurface water flow.
No shit. If we want boar, we have to go all of 20 km north, were it is all save, save enough to not even require testing. Locally, hunters want to be paid upfront to hunt boar because they cannot sell it profitably (every boar requires testing, paid for by the hunter, and the 88% number of unsave meat samples frol the article doesn't surprise me at all).
So, the whole news is: radioactive contamination in Auszrian and Bavarian boar is not only caised by Chernobyl. Intresting, for sure. One fact the article ignores, it might be in the study, is the fact we didn't have any nuclear weapons testing done nearby. So, why is the whole nuclear boars thing so prevelant only arpund here, in places we cn clearly trace fallout from Chernobyl to (througj weather patterns at the time)? All in all, a really, really bad science journalism article... Lazy, bad arguments, not cotation of sources (instead we have interview quotes, two of the three people interviewed weren't even part of the study!).
[+] [-] chrisjj|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]