Quote from: Foxpup on Today at 12:11:45 AM

I'd be far more concerned if they weren't radioactive, given that the only way that can happen is if they're over 80 years old and stored in a sealed container to avoid fallout from nuclear weapons testing, which has contaminated literally everything on Earth since then. And that's not even counting naturally-occurring radioactive materials released into the environment by industrial processes such as mining. Given all the fear-mongering around low-level radiation, I can't even pretend to be concerned by this radioactive shrimp until I know how it compares to bananas.

EDIT: Found a more useful source for this story: edition.cnn.com/2025/08/19/health/radioactive-contamination-shrimp-walmart-fda

Quote from: CNN

The levels of cesium detected – about 68 becquerels per kilogram – were well below the FDA’s intervention level of 1,200 Bq/kg. Still, regulators issued the advisory out of caution, citing the potential risks of cancer from long-term, low-dose exposure and problems at the supplier’s facility.

68 becquerels per kilogram is only 4.5 bananas per kilogram - nothing to panic about and certainly not indicative of a major nuclear whoopsie.

That was sort of my first question. How radioactive? Lots of things are radioactive in our lives. The example I used was granite, but bananas are another good example to use to illustrate this point. It sounds like it isn't a big deal, but I find that a bit hard to believe. Walmart hasn't exactly always errored on the side of caution when it comes to their customers (they use apeel on their fruit for God's sake). My guess is that while it may have measured in the official tests as not harmful, they must have had some indication that wasn't the case for the entirety of the shrimp or I don't believe they would have issued this recall.

Quote from: OgNasty on August 19, 2025, 08:44:51 PM

Granite radioactive or flux capacitor radioactive?