Sure. But if the numbers are below regulation numbers why write articles on it constantly. I mean the same thing happened with fish around California after Fukushima. There was a measurable increase in radiation in the fish but still well below legal limits which are below dangerous levels (factors of safety are built in. Caution is good after all).

But the numbers are not below regulation. They are being surpassed in different regions during different times of the year. They have to reimburse those hunters with 250€ for every board which amounts to millions just for the state of Bavaria.

Also: what do you mean by "constantly"? How many articles are there and how can there be too many if you don't even know that they are not below regulation?

But regulations can be changed, if they are stupid.

So are they stupid(overprotective), or do they make sense, in the meaning there is a real danger from eating contaminated boar?

I'd argue that overprotective is not the opposite of stupid. In radiation we purposefully overestimate the risk when setting regulations and limits. This is due to the fact that we can actually have a lot of error and still be safe. Error due to bad detectors, non-homogeneous distribution of radiation, dosages due to outside factors while not wearing a dosimeter, etc. These regulations are also what have made nuclear one of, if not _the_, safest source of energy we have. This safety comes at a monetary cost, yes, but I don't think anyone is really against that.

I don't think they're stupid just because some anonymous person on the internet says so and especially not if it's a regulation nobody profits from. There will be reasons for that.

Particularly as there still seems to be quite a disagreement over the dangers of Caesium-137 across the pond.

The English, American sources dominated, Wikiarticle makes it sound mostly benign.

Yet European language articles, like French and German, will be quite a lot more skeptical.

This even goes up to an official levels where afaik the EU has associated more dangers and risks with lower Caesium-137 than their US counterparts, thus the "tolerated levels" of it also vary greatly between the two.

The EU just recently decided that nuclear energy is green because some of the influential countries failed to get into renewables and now need to greenwash their rotting nuclear fleet. I rather trust my local scientists who care about peoples health.

Your local scientists often advocate for nuclear. So I'm a bit confused. Sure there's some that don't but there's no large group that has unanimous agreement on anything.

So now scientists become activists?

It seems to me you've drifted off with your argumentation. I don't see a reason to continue this discussion at this point.

I was responding to this

>>> I rather trust my local scientists who care about peoples health.

You said you trust the scientists and not the government regulations. I'm encouraging you to actually talk to these scientists because nuclear is very popular among scientists.