The thing is contamination pollutes upwards, so if leafy greens have 1 mg of radiation per daily intake. The meat from herbivores would be something like ten times that amount and carnivores would be ten times the contamination of herbivores.

We’re seeing this effect with micro plastics and fish, the higher up in the food chain a fish is, the more micro plastics they have

The hunting equipment can be for other scenarios.

Financial systems breakdown, into full anarchy. I reckon a cabin in nowhere, hunting equipment and barn full of seeds would be pretty rad for that scenario.

But yeah, eating plants is better than eating animals when contamination is a risk

But in case of a radioactive catastrophe, how long would you need the bunker to last?

I mostly see this chart focused on ultra processed foods, so the base ingredients are mostly safe?

Also as a filthy Scandinavian, Orkla Group does have quite a lot available in the ultra processed category

Some farms are conventional, some are organic, some let’s their cows move more freely than others, some use more antibiotics others less, etc

So no, milk is not just milk. Animal welfare as well as animal intake are big parts for why certain brands can take a steeper price than others

The only places I’ve ever witnessed unbranded milk, are in very rural locations at which you pick it up at the literal farm that produced the milk and that’s a brand in itself

and how many images are above 16k x 16k pixels?

If you have an optimisation for 99% of all online images, then that’s dope - You can use more niche or older compressions for your very high pixel files

Statistically speaking, then immigrants and refugees, commit more crimes.

It’s not so much the first generation (the immigrants/refugees themselves) but second and third generation growing up in the country of destination, well and often origin for 2nd/3rd.

Even when factoring for socioeconomic factors, they’re over represented statistically speaking. But it’s still missing a lot of factors.

There’s more reported crime in areas with closer population density, most immigrants aim for the big cities; As they’re often more diverse and have better job opportunities, but they’re often ending up in below median pay jobs. Combined with living in the most expensive areas, they often end up living in some of the roughest neighbourhoods of the big cities.

While a lot of the poor people among the natives tend to live in rural locations, which sees less reported crimes and tends to have no/few turf wars.

Looking at immigrant workers going to Europe during the worker shortage of the 70s, lots of Turks and Persian folks migrated for jobs and a lot of new cheap housing were built at the edges of city centers. These areas full of people not speaking the native tongue, under median pay. Was the perfect storm to ensure slower than wanted immigration/assimilation - Ideally you’d want to spread migration across the entire country, so Ibrahim, Jiao, Radoslaw, Brian and whatever else their names are would immediately interact with natives from day 1.

Which is exactly what several countries did for Ukrainian refugees, we have examples of countries paying their citizens to house them in their homes and the results are obvious. It worked really well. Although we still have to wait another decade, before we can spot whether or not their children still end up in crime statistics.

There also tends to be rules that disfavours non citizens, an example from Denmark is the fact you can be forced to live with your parents until you’re 21 if you’re a non EU citizen. Even though you were born here, went through the Danish school system aced high school and the likes. You might be forced to stay at home, rendering university impossible for a subset of bright people for a few years of life.

These systematic rules, is something that will turn people against the system and is also a part of the explanation