33
Plutonium levels at nuclear test site in WA up to 4,500 times higher than rest of coast, study finds
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2025
33 points (97.1% liked)
Australia
4295 readers
165 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@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
I didn’t realize the paper was linked! It specifically mentions:
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.
@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!
☢️
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.