Researchers say contamination found at Montebello Islands is part of fallout from 1950s British tests and will persist for thousands of years

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    showed concentrations of plutonium at the islands were fourto 4,500 times higher than those found in sediment samples taken at two distant coastal sites

    Emphasis mine.

    Not saying this isn’t a big problem, but the article seems like it’s fearmongering too, or at least not providing enough specifics. 4-4,500 times higher than almost zero is still extremely low, and it’s only dangerous if inhaled.

    • Fuse Views@infosec.exchange
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      @brucethemoose

      Well, not quite fearmongering but certainly an unclear sentence that was derived from the study’s abstract.

      Multiple sites were tested, and the range of contamination across those sites was “four to 4,500 times higher in the Montebello Islands than the WA coastline…”

      In short, ‘bad’ in some places, ‘very, very bad’ in others.

      @mio

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I didn’t realize the paper was linked! It specifically mentions:

        600 Bq / kg

        This is a unit of radiation / mass. Going by a WolframAlpha example, one cubic meter of “typical” emits soil about 10,000 Bq. 1 cubic meter of the tested soil emits about > 900,000 Bq, though the high end is an outlier:

        So 90x above ambient soil radiation, it seems.

        …This is not a lot! Dirt is not very radioactive, we are talking microscopic amounts compared to radiation sources like X-rat machines. You wouldn’t want to inhale a ton of the soil, but still.

        • Fuse Views@infosec.exchange
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          @brucethemoose

          Yeah, cool!

          I know nothing about radioactive contamination in the environment.

          I was merely commenting on the ‘fearmongering’ aspect.

          It should (hopefully) be uncommon to see ‘fearmongering’ or ‘click bait’ from The Guardian, but everyone should be alert to ‘alarmist’ language.

          The Guardian was perhaps unclear that:
          Some sites have 4x the ‘nominal background radiation’, and
          Some sites have up to 4500x the ‘nominal background radiation’.

          But, I don’t think The Guardian was ‘fearmongering’…
          😁

          I’m going to continue to stay away from all radioactive sources while preparing my banana smoothies on a granite bench top, and smoking the odd cigarette!

          I couldn’t possibly be exposed to any form of radiation from those activities!
          ☢️

          • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Yeah it wasn’t that bad on the guardian’s part, papers have always written headlines that sell. And you absolutely 100% don’t want to inhale plutonium dust. It alpha decays with a lot of energy, which even in small amounts is a recipe for lung cancer. IDK specifics for how much it would take to get kicked up and be deadly.