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:

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:

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:

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
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
Nath@aussie.zone
33
Plutonium levels at nuclear test site in WA up to 4,500 times higher than rest of coast, study finds (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 day ago by mio@lemmy.mio19.uk to c/australia@aussie.zone
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

@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 3 points 1 day 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.