Due - which part is 'sensationalism' ... The overall impression I get is that that vulcanism is not a significant source for release of uranium and/or plutonium isotopes, and that the much greater threat is nuclear 'accidents', ....
Radioactivity is part of nature - and those that understand it, like most that study volcanoes seriously, would normally see no threat in low levels of radiation in the ocean, atmosphere, soil, and so on.
Take C-14 as an example - the total amount that is in the atmosphere - not a 'short half life' substance when compared to Radon - yet, we don't hear a lot about the increased cancer risk due to C-14 releases.
Perhaps the google news is 'sensationalized' - perhaps it is just a calculation that is so routine and so mundane, because the threat level is so low - that we hear little of it, and when we do - THAT appears to be 'sensationalism'. Putting things in proper perspective, when a perspective has been WBAR (warped beyond all recognition) - the 'putting proper' will seem like ultra-extremism.
On the other hand - when it comes to the 'nuclear industry' - have we simply become inured to the sensationalism that accompanies so much of that reporting, the 'fact stretching', the 'threat death beat' ... that we accept that as being 'truth'. Certainly, we KNOW for fact, that there are RABID extremists, some with huge microphones, that will do, say, spin ANYTHING regarding 'man-made' radiation poisoning of their precious god - mother earth. And that includes lying through their teeth. So, which side is really being 'sensationalized' here ? AHSSCS.
I strongly suspect the latter. Chernobyl - no question that was - LOCALLY (a very large locale) - extremely bad - but it did not 'globally annihilate' as so much of the sensationalist news has attempted to paint (and still attempts to paint) for that event.
The Bluefin 'contamination' was what tripped me to this line. The level of natural radiation, and that includes uranium, in the oceans is NOT trivial by a long stretch. One could take all the so-called 'man made' nuclear waste - dump it in the oceans - and the result would not even be a hundredth of a percent rise in the 'total radiation' of the oceans. That is the type of 'orders of magnitude' to which I refer.
Chernobyl - 2,600 sq km
Earth Surface Area - 510,000,000 sq km
Oceans - we are talking about a 'cubed' effect (volume) - over surface area - plus the magnitude of differences between water and air when dealing with 'radiation'.
My kingdom for an honest ... news outlet ?
The total amount of uranium dissolved in seawater at a uniform concentration of 3 mg U/m3 in the world's oceans is 4.5 billion tons. (Btw: every single bit of naturally occurring radiation has ultimately come from volcanics.) Again - a trivial calculation, mostly meaningless, except to mining engineers ... but would be viewed as 'sensationalism', wouldn't it, when brought up in an article discussing the REAL global impact of Fukushima ....
UPTAKE AND RETENTION OF CESIUM 137 AND ZINC 65 BY - ASLO
www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_10/issue_1/0058.pdf
... The natural cesium content of seawater was assumed to be 0.5 +/0 0.04 ug/liter (Smales and Salmon 1955).
Total cesium content of the oceans - 7.2 billion tons - How much of that is Ce134 and Ce137 ... UNKNOWN - many sources (erroneously) claim that only Ce133 is 'naturally occuring'. Compared to the 'age of the oceans', the half-life of Ce134/137 (2.0652 years and 30 years, respectively) is the blink of an eye.
Also factor in the distance from 'natural cesium leaching from volcanics of samples taken' ...
Reading the studies of Chernobyl Ce134/137 distribution - it becomes CLEAR that the sampling of 'ocean waters' shows that the effect is extreme near-surface for several reasons - elevating the radiation content of the upper few feet due to Ce134-137.
Bluefin tuna do NOT exist in the 'very near surface'.
Hyup - some verrrrrry interesting questions are raised, indeed, about the sensationalism being used by the anti-nuke crowd, MMS, and so-called 'scientists' involved.
| 
