Slashdot Mirror


The Cold War's Legacy of Mutation

fm6 writes: "Not surprising, but still pretty sobering: Russian communities downwind from cold-war-era surface testing sites are experiencing 50% increase in mutation rates. I'm reminded of Terry Tempest William's term: Virtual Uninhabitants."

55 comments

  1. So much for... by Lars+T. · · Score: 3, Interesting
    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    1. Re:So much for... by Stone+Rhino · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Evolution !=mutation.
      Mutation means the random changes that allow creatures to evolve, though that's not all these changes do. They also cause cancer and the like, and are the reason that radiation exposure leads to cancer.
      Evolution involves more than just these random changes, however. It also involves the recombination of these through sexual reproduction, and the survival of the best of them through natural selection. Therefore, the fact that mutation still is present does not mean that evolution will occur.

      --


      Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
    2. Re:So much for... by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1

      Whoa there... Lets not crack open that whole evolution can of worms so soon. I don't know if ./ can take another deluge of posts on this subject again. Besides, not everyone even agrees that evolution ever happened.

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
    3. Re:So much for... by Zara2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Evolution !=mutation. Sorry man, more mutations usually does indicate an increase in the speed of evolutionary change. IF mutations and random change of some sort is happening a certian small percentage of those mutations will be more (or less) useful for furthered survival of that organisms genes. The more mutation that occurs means that there is a better chance of a "good" mutation happening. Especially considering how rare a "good" mutation is. While most mutations will be bad an increace in mutations usually means an increace in ALL mutations, useful and detrimental. The really detrimental ones die off without passing on thier genes. Most traits and mutations dont ultimately matter and may or may not be passed on depending on other traits that organism has. (A non-useful mutation of a third nipple doesn't stop Marky-mark from getting laid.) And that one in a million benificial mutation that can also be passed on is evolution.

      --

      Pithy, yet ultimately meaningless, phrase expressed with gusto!

    4. Re:So much for... by (void*) · · Score: 2

      Mutation is the core ingredient of evolution. You would have a hard time arguing that allele frequencies have not changed, given excessive mutattions.

    5. Re:So much for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution does not require sexual reproduction - it just happens faster if there is sexual reproduction (since sexual reproduction is, as you say, recombination). Plenty of bacteria reproduce asexually, and you can watch 'em evolve drug resistances and whatnot in the lab over a couple of years!

  2. Did this... by Stone+Rhino · · Score: 2

    Make anyone else think of the X-Men? Mention of mutation always brings that to mind. [X-men theme plays in head]

    --


    Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
  3. Coming soon to a mailbox near you.. by hkon · · Score: 2, Funny

    I imagine the spam "Now you can get a 50% increased chance of having the super powers you always wanted!!!". Coming to you from the same people who brought you "Want to be a SPY!?" and "Spank me HARD, make me wet"
    (titles taken from actual spam-messages I've gotten during the last couple of months)

    1. Re:Coming soon to a mailbox near you.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Offtopic)

      How about:

      Attract men with bigger breasts!

      (actual subject line)

    2. Re:Coming soon to a mailbox near you.. by Not2Bryt64 · · Score: 1

      (also off topic)

      Who wants a man with bigger breasts?

      Sorry.

      --
      -These aren't my pants.
  4. Happened right here, too. by Deagol · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I don't know about mutations and such, but a few of the Southwest states had down-wind surprises delivered by the Nevada test sites.

    We just bought some rural property in southern Utah. My wife was searching for plant zone information for our area and happened across a link discussing the sterility and cancer rates of people in Cedar City and Parowan. I can't find that link, but a quick search turned up several relavent sites:

    http://www.downwinders.org

    http://www.eq.state.ut.us/EQRAD/fallout.htm

  5. Too Bad News by eyenot · · Score: 0

    This, and all related stories, are all just too bad -- because each story like this, be it to reminisce or extrapolate, means that we're a mark of probability closer to experiencing these effects amplified as the result of direct, near-ground-zero exposure. Peace be with you, wherever your marker falls.

    [ka-boom]

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  6. Don't forget the US by Hard_Code · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.nuclearfiles.org/maps/

    http://rex.nci.nih.gov/massmedia/Fallout/content s. html

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  7. No X-Men. Sorry. by fm6 · · Score: 2

    You do know that was just a movie? Most mutations are quite unphotogenic.

    1. Re:No X-Men. Sorry. by Stone+Rhino · · Score: 2

      umm... k. X-men was not "just a movie." It was a movie, several series of comic books, a few animated series, and of course numerous computer games and other paraphenelia. So X-men is not "just a movie." Though I take it that your point is that not all mutations are like X-men.

      --


      Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
  8. that explains... by cmdr_fishtaco · · Score: 0, Troll

    cowboy neal's third nut...

    1. Re:that explains... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to know how you know about that.

      --Cowboy Neal

  9. Competition for USA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This raises the frightening possibility that the Slavs could evolve -- specifically, what if they evolved a society that wasn't based on stealing from each other all the time ? What if they stopped blamming Chechens, Gypsies, Americans, Jews, Tsarists, anti-revolutionaries, or whoever, and admitted that it's their own fault they live like medieval peasants ?

    Given that their society already has lots of smart people and technology, this could provide an unacceptable challenge to American Hegemony.

    I propose the following in order to stabilise Slavic society at it's current level of disfunction:

    1) Get a mousy-faced leader who crushes all creative opposition and free press but never really does anything.

    2) Distract any attention on societies ills by having a small war on the side. Everybody hates Muslims, maybe they can find some muslims on the edge of their terrority to harass. The more smart young men are drafted and sent there the better. The ones that aren't killed can learn to kidnap and shoot muslims and charge the families to get the mutilated body back, rather than going to college and learning useless technology stuff; this will prepare them well for the future of Slavic "civilization".

    3) Encourage as many Slavs as possible to steal from each other in many small and petty ways. The annoyance and trouble should cost more than the goods stolen. Customs officiers can take things from luggage, also encourage people on trains to accuse someone briefly getting off not having a ticket just as the train leaves, so they can take their luggage. Policemen should take bribes from drivers. The more Slavs are distracted, the better.

    4) Encourage Slavs to put each other into prison where they can get raped and infected with AIDS, and learn how to commit crimes and forget how to work. Since not enough young Slavs actually commit real crimes, putting them in jail anytime they are accused and not letting them out until they can prove their innocence may be advisable.

    5) Anytime a Slavic business has tough times, publish editorials saying "They're giving our country to the Jews."

    6) Anytime a Slavic business does well, publish editorials saying "This business only does well because Jews secretely own it." We can not let and Slavs see an example of Slavic success, except through crime.

    7) One word: vodka.

    With diligence, attention, and a stern stomach for the necessary tactics, this potential threat can be faced down, and the Slavs can become the new Niggers of the world. When the alien masters arrive to take us all to the stars, they will be so repulsed by the Slavs that they will leave them all here, to stare about the empty Earth and wonder whose fault it is now.

    If there is anything I have left out, please post below. I will making a report containing these recommendations to the Illuminati High Council, and I want to be complete.

    Thanks !

    1. Re:Competition for USA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some Slavic women are cute, in a chunky, submissive kind of way. We all know that the small heterosexual portion of slashdot isn't getting laid.

      Can we get some mail order bride programs going so we don't have to waste them along with the rest of their race ?

      We can arrange to give them to socially inept yet hardworking and productive American males. Many of these males will not have developed enough emotionally to have a relationship with someone without beatings, but hey, anything is better than a life in a Slavic country.

      I suggest advertising these mail order brides on slashdot. Perhaps we can give a few away, kind of like the Slashdot Cruiser ! Maybe Thinkgeek would like to expand their product line ?

    2. Re:Competition for USA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the russians should make sweet sweet love to George Bush. That will cure the AIDS problem.

    3. Re:Competition for USA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, SIR are a COMMUNIST, and if I ever meet you I will KICK YOUR ASS!

    4. Re:Competition for USA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, If you want to insult a russian, just find one and do it. They don't mind.

      Probably will be too drunk to notice anyway.

    5. Re:Competition for USA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a prolonged period of extreme international tension, but no real war ? (Real war is too expensive.) They would probably develop lots of nuclear weapons and poison themselves and their neighbors !

    6. Re:Competition for USA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russians aren't drunk. They are just stupid.

    7. Re:Competition for USA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you did not read the original article. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE. Jesus.

    8. Re:Competition for USA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't All the dumb boorish russians kill the smart succesful ones during the Russian "Evolution", sorry "Revolverution, sorry "Revolution"?

    9. Re:Competition for USA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are we trying to solve it? Isn't it already solved? I mean they did it (and so did we), and now we make fun of them. What is the question?

    10. Re:Competition for USA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you tell the difference between a mail order bride and a pizza?

      A pizza doesn't scream when you put it in the oven.

  10. How do you count mutations? by SIGFPE · · Score: 2

    A mutation in an intron isn't going to do much? Or ar they talking about people with extra fingers?

    --
    -- SIGFPE
  11. US & Nukes by Mr.Ned · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    It's too bad everyone thinks nuclear power is the way of the future, if only we can contain the wastes. Never mind that, even when subsidized, it's still the most expensive way to boil water.

    What worries me is situations like this in the future. This is just (!) after some atmospheric testing. In 10-30 years, when all the US nuclear reactors go offline, all the fuel rods and other radioactive waste (I'm not sure, but I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable if I knew that I was drinking water formerly used as steam heated by uranium) have to be dealt with. Right now, as a previous slashdot story has noted, the US will be dumping its nuclear wastes in an earthquake-prone area likely to contaminate the water table in the area of Las Vegas. Even a small amount of radioactivity, as seen in this story, can cause mutation, to say nothing of the level of contamination during that Japanese disaster a decade or three back. Think about what happens when a large US city is exposed to bunches of radiation. It suddenly becomes not far off on another continent, but in our own back yard too late to do anything about it.

    Write your congressman about Yucca Mountain. Hope that state's rights prevail and the governor of Nevada can nix the project. It's our future. This isn't something like the DMCA or the SSSCA - this is nuclear waste in our back yard.

    1. Re:US & Nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you win in your efforts, and that all your children have cancer from some accident that occurred at one of the dozens of local storage facilities that will not be emptied because Yucca mountain was not approved.

      You fucking oaf.

      Let me spell it out for you: Not approving Yucca mountain doesn't cause that waste to disappear. Instead it's kept in big swimming pool like storage tanks close to populaton centers.

      So approving Yucca mountain is probably the safest thing to do. Even the greenies know that.

      So why are the greenies still raising a stink ? Because they have to make sure that Yucca mountain is so expensive, politically as well as financially, that no new nuclear power plants are built. (That's their goal, whether or not it is smart is a separate issue.)

      So the Greenies are yapping and suing but they know they don't want to win. They just want to make sure that the conservatives don't get the idea that now that we have Yucca mountain, they can start putting nuclear power plants in every county.

      You are just an idiot for parroting their line, a tool of the greenies.

      There is no reason why you can't on one hand have the position that current waste should be stored in Yucca, but no new plants should be built to make more waste. Which is probably what will happen as a result of the political balencing act.

      Most of the problems of the world are caused by fanatic idiots like you, either on one side or the other. Please die, and take your friends with you, because the rest of us are tired of it.

    2. Re:US & Nukes by Mr.Ned · · Score: 1

      >
      Let me spell it out for you: Not approving Yucca mountain doesn't cause that waste to disappear. Instead it's kept in big swimming pool like storage tanks close to populaton centers.
      >

      I agree, that's a big problem. The US spends millions a year trying to contain wastes in temporary storage facilities. But putting it in Yucca Mountain doesn't keep nuclear swimming pools away from population centers; instead, it creates what amounts to a giant nuclear lake just a little ways away from one major population center.

      >
      So approving Yucca mountain is probably the safest thing to do. Even the greenies know that.
      >

      That would be incorrect. It's no safer than the current alternative of temporary storage, but when (not if) the waste gets loose, it only affects Nevada.

      >
      So why are the greenies still raising a stink ? Because they have to make sure that Yucca mountain is so expensive, politically as well as financially, that no new nuclear power plants are built. (That's their goal, whether or not it is smart is a separate issue.)
      >

      No new nuclear power plants have been commissioned since 1979. All orders for nuclear power plants since 1973 have been cancelled. You're ill informed.

      >
      So the Greenies are yapping and suing but they know they don't want to win. They just want to make sure that the conservatives don't get the idea that now that we have Yucca mountain, they can start putting nuclear power plants in every county.
      >

      Not everyone who is concerned about Yucca Mountain is a greenie. The greenies are not some sort of worldwide secret organization.

      Countries around the world are halting the use of nuclear power. France, who gets most of its power from nukes, has cancelled all new projects. The Scandanavian countries, also heavy users, are scaling back as well. The only country that isn't is China, but equating them with being worried about their populance doesn't have any real precedent.

      >
      There is no reason why you can't on one hand have the position that current waste should be stored in Yucca, but no new plants should be built to make more waste. Which is probably what will happen as a result of the political balencing act.
      >

      Balancing act? Again, there haven't been any new power plants in most 20-something's lifetimes. You don't seem to be old enough to remember Three Mile Island. Or old enough to read the above article.

      There are several better ways of going about this - I won't go into detail, but they are: shoot it into the sun (bad idea), put it under the ice caps (bad idea), store it in the Pacific muck (good idea), put it in a subduction zone (no one knows if it's a good idea), or store it under the water table of a large city (bad idea) - oh, wait, that last one is already being done.

    3. Re:US & Nukes by Komodo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just as a matter of note, the water used to cool (American, commercial) reactors does not mix with the water used to moderate the reaction... eg, the water in the cooling towers never passed through the reactor vessel and is not radioactive, did not absorb neutrons, or anything like that.

      The water used in the reactor vessel passes through a heat exchanger and transfers the heat to another cooling system, and that's what ends up in the cooling towers. You'll never touch 'steam heated by uranium', it's 'steam heated by other steam'.

      Not all reactor designs are so safe. Be glad you live in the US. In former Soviet states, some reactors use liquid sodium as a moderator (at least, they use it in nuclear subs). I don't know all that much about power plants, but I've been told that this is very scary when it breaks.

      So forget the radiation, a more immediate effect than radiation is 'thermal pollution' - eg all that heat has to go somewhere, and in coastal areas, putting it back in the ocean basically kills the ecosystem deader than the radiation ever could.

      Hazards of an industrial civilization... but most of us would be dead already without it.

    4. Re:US & Nukes by z)bandito(_X · · Score: 1

      putting it in a subduction zone sounds interesting, do you have more information on this?

      of course, a boat accident would probably be worse than Yucaa mountain being damaged, considering how the ocean currents could really distribute the waste.

    5. Re:US & Nukes by RFC959 · · Score: 2
      ...even when subsidized, it's still the most expensive way to boil water.
      That could well be because there isn't anything like the investment in nuclear infrastructure that there is in most other energy sources. For example, camel dung is used as a fuel by lots of people around the world, but I'll bet you $50 boiling water with camel dung in New York City would be significantly more expensive than using any more common power source, simply because there isn't a large market for it, or a distribution system in place.
      Even a small amount of radioactivity, as seen in this story...
      The story didn't say how much radioactivity there was. Your prejudices are showing.
    6. Re:US & Nukes by leucadiadude · · Score: 2

      "I agree, that's a big problem. The US spends millions a year trying to contain wastes in temporary storage facilities. But putting it in Yucca Mountain doesn't keep nuclear swimming pools away from population centers; instead, it creates what amounts to a giant nuclear lake just a little ways away from one major population center."

      You left out that it's actually 95 miles away, under 1000+ feet of rock, stored inside some of the toughest corrosion resistant metal containers known to our science, those containers inside thick (I mean meters thick) concrete vaults.


      "That would be incorrect. It's no safer than the current alternative of temporary storage, but when (not if) the waste gets loose, it only affects Nevada."


      May not be safer (it seems much safer to me), but what is harder to watch and keep secure, 50+ sites or 1 site?


      "No new nuclear power plants have been commissioned since 1979. All orders for nuclear power plants since 1973 have been cancelled. You're ill informed."


      See my previous post in this thread, you are the ill informed person here, so much so that you lose quite a bit a credibility, since the facts are so easily checked.


      "Countries around the world are halting the use of nuclear power. France, who gets most of its power from nukes, has cancelled all new projects."


      Because they are quite happy with the reserve margins they currently have in their generation, not from some irrational fear of nuclear waste.


      "There are several better ways of going about this - I won't go into detail, but they are: shoot it into the sun (bad idea), put it under the ice caps (bad idea), store it in the Pacific muck (good idea), put it in a subduction zone (no one knows if it's a good idea), or store it under the water table of a large city (bad idea) - oh, wait, that last one is already being done."


      Yeah, all of these methods of final disposal can be accomplished even if Yucca mountain is filled. Yucca mountain is a storage site fer cripes sake! This stuff isn't going to be "dumped" off the back of a truck and buried. By the very nature of the design of these cannisters, they can be moved again at a later date if a more safe storage idea is agreed upon. Also, you left out our best (from an engineering point of view - never the one chosen of course) and that is MOX fuel reburning and reprocessing fuel. But that is a whole different argument.

    7. Re:US & Nukes by leucadiadude · · Score: 2

      "So forget the radiation, a more immediate effect than radiation is 'thermal pollution' - eg all that heat has to go somewhere, and in coastal areas, putting it back in the ocean basically kills the ecosystem deader than the radiation ever could."

      Well I know of at least two studies that lasted over a decade and they both show mixed effects to thermal pollution. I.e., some species populations exploded in the 15 - 25F warmer area near the plant outfall pipes, and some species populations fell. As to the effects on marine plants, the noise level in the data was too high to really conclude anything at all (the variations observed were within the parameters of natural variations in plant growth).

      There is a definite effect, but is the effect of sufficient widespread damage to warrant shutdowns? I don't think so.

    8. Re:US & Nukes by Mr.Ned · · Score: 1

      I don't know much about the alternatives, just that there are ones.

      As I understand, subduction zone dumping goes like this: an area is picked around a subduction zone (like the coast of California, if I remember my geography correctly - not the transform fault). The waste would be buried/dropped as close as humanly (or robotically) possible. Hopefully in a short period of time (this could be a long period of time, don't know exactly how long), they'll be subducted, melted, etc.

      The major problem is with volcanoes. If those long half-life isotopes stick around for the next Mt. St. Helens, a lot of people won't be happy. No one really knows if this could happen or not. Certainly not me.

    9. Re:US & Nukes by Komodo · · Score: 1

      I don't think we should be shutting any plants down, either. All I'm saying is, let's not react first to the threat of 'radiation' because it's a big scary word. The bottom line is that everyone wants the benefits of cheap energy but nobody wants the waste products in their own back yard, and it's not as simple as 'Where do we put the fuel rods?'

  12. Yet you feel free to use electricity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Right now nukes are more expensive than fossil fuels. That won't be true forever as fossil fuels become more scarce.

    How many folks are going to turn off their air conditioner, blow drier, and computer when the fossil fuels are gone?

    1. Re:Yet you feel free to use electricity by Mr.Ned · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nukes are more expensive than just about any fuels.

      Right now, world-wide, nukes and solar cost $.10-.20 per KWH. Solar is so expensive because there just hasn't been enough research into it. Nukes are expensive because, again, using subatomic particles to heat water is really quite inefficient. Coal is about $.08-.09 per KWH. It's in pretty good supply, and will last beyond my lifetime.

      However, hydro power is only $.03-.05 per KWH. That's cheap. And it's renewable. Wind is also about $.05 per KWH. Geothermal is $.10 per KWH. Those are cheap! However, the US government is not putting any money into these projects, as they suggest a distributed micropower solution instead of the current centralized macropower gig - that won't sit well with the commercial energy industry.

      Also, you say 'right now' in your post - it's right now and looking like forever. There haven't been any new nuke plants commissioned since 1979. All orders after 1973 have been cancelled. Nuclear power is on its way out as a consumer power supply.

    2. Re:Yet you feel free to use electricity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coal is about $.08-.09 per KWH. It's in pretty good supply, and will last beyond my lifetime.


      The environmental consequences of mining and burning coal make it unattractive as a fuel. Note that large reserves of coal in ecologically sensitive areas have been decalred off-limits to mining by the US government, something the current administration seems likely to rescind. Coal will not save you.

      However, hydro power is only $.03-.05 per KWH. That's cheap. And it's renewable.

      And there is no more of it. The number of sites suitable for hyydroelectric power generation is small, and nearly all of them are in use. There just aren't enough rivers in enough places with canyons to build more dams. The Three Gorges project in China is hugely ambitious, and even if it succeeds, it won't provide more than 10% of the energy China will consume in the next century.

      Wind is also about $.05 per KWH. Geothermal is $.10 per KWH. Those are cheap!

      Once again, geothermal and wind power need appropriate sites for the generation station. There aren't that many, and they tend to be in remote places like windswept islands near Anarctica, or along mid-ocean ridges.

      There haven't been any new nuke plants commissioned since 1979. All orders after 1973 have been cancelled. Nuclear power is on its way out as a consumer power supply.

      Only in the US. The French, the Germans, the Japanese, and the South Africans have all been vigorously building power plants in the last 20 years. They've also been advancing the state of the art in power plants, absent any investment from the US. Hell, they've been researching fusion on their own for years (the US just recently got back into the ITER project). Nuke plants are expensive to operate and impossible to build in the US because of unfounded paranoia about "atomic" accidents. While the US whines about high-level waste and whose backyard to put it in, the rest of the world is designing reactors that use high-level waste as fuel, reducing it to harmless gases and lead.

    3. Re:Yet you feel free to use electricity by leucadiadude · · Score: 2

      "Also, you say 'right now' in your post - it's right now and looking like forever. There haven't been any new nuke plants commissioned since 1979. All orders after 1973 have been cancelled. Nuclear power is on its way out as a consumer power supply."

      Wrong wrong wrong! No new nuclear plants have been ordered since 1979. There were several plants that completed construction and low power testing and received full power licenses all through the 1980's and even the first part of the 1990's! Look up the Seabrook Station (1990) in NH and check out it's entering commercial service date. Also ANO2 (1980), San Onofre (1984), Diablo Canyon (1985), Commanche Peak (1993), Watts Bar (1996). I could go on and on. But facts aren't going to dissuade you obviously, never mind.

  13. It's called SARCASM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fucking dolt.

  14. I stand corrected! by fm6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Right, it was just a comic book with lots of fancy spin offs and tie ins. Obviously a comic book is far superior to a movie as a touch point for life and death issues like this one! After all, a comic book is literature!

    1. Re:I stand corrected! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes a comic CAN be literature.
      Read Neil Gaiman's "The Sandman" to see for your self. Don't forget to read the introductions by Harlan, King, Barker and others because you might miss something like a refferance to the awards that it has won as a peice of literature. At least one of those awards can no longer even nominate a comic book any more because all of those real writers of literature were put in thier place when this comic book guy won _their_ award.

  15. Our precious bodily fluids by Caractacus+Potts · · Score: 1


    "Mr. President, we must not allow a mutation gap!"

    Sorry, anything concerning the cold war makes me think of Dr. Strangelove!

  16. Cedar City! by wiredog · · Score: 2

    I lived there from 89 to 2000! Graduated from Southern Utah University in 1993. The local paper sucks. Read the Trib instead.

  17. Delitted by fm6 · · Score: 2

    Hey, I'm a fan of Alita and Sexylosers.com myself. I consider the whole literature-versus-junk thing pretty bogus. It's just that mass-market fantasies about radiation turning teenagers into superheroes is not the first thing that comes to mind when I read about A-bomb survivors in Siberia and Utah.

  18. Radioactive Water by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    I can't remember the exact number, but your average beer has something like 10-100 times the radiation than that of nuclear plant water. And yet people have no problem drinking beer...
    Talk to a Nuclear Physicist sometime, we live bathed in radiation our entire lives. All joking aside, we all glow in the dark on some wavelength. =P

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  19. Delitted by fm6 · · Score: 2

    Hey--, I'm a fan of Alita and Sexylosers.com myself. I consider the whole literature-versus-junk thing pretty bogus. It's just that mass-market fantasies about radiation turning teenagers into superheroes is not the first thing that comes to mind when I read about A-bomb survivors in Siberia and Utah.

  20. Semipalatinsk by ^_^x · · Score: 1

    Interesting that they called it a "nuclear testing facility." Semipalatinsk was an inhabited area. There were also belowground tests according to accounts of people who lived there. (Detonations in abandoned mines.) Basically it was an area used to test the effects of extreme doses of radiation on an average community.

    Having seen the environment there, I'm surprised that there's still life there in any form. It's a fairly barren-looking area, and at certain places (such as the lake,) Geiger counters essentially let out a steady buzz even all these years later. There is also a lab filled with stillborn, mutated fetuses.

    I have seen many shocking instances of how depraved humanity can be. Public executions, nazi concentration camps, and similar things, but none stood out in my mind as boldly as Semipalatinsk. If nothing else makes it remarkable, it's the fact that this was done to their own people.

    Here are some info sites:
    http://www.isar.org/isar/archive/ST/Semipalatins k. html
    http://www.well.com/user/fine/journalism/kazakh. ht ml (Select all text if you find it unreadable on the laft side)
    http://www.newtimes.ru/eng/detail.asp?art_id=221

  21. Funny... by DarkRecluse · · Score: 2

    It appears that a small group of scientists who studied the area found that the ecosystem surrounding the site appears to be better off than when it wasn't radioactive.

    It seems that, at least in the short term, the animals and plants are better off with nuclear waste because humans have moved from these areas...kind of sad knowing your species is worse than cancer causing nuclear radiation isn't it?

    http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chernobyl/wildlifepreser ve .htm

    --
    --"It's Bradford Company, slash your last name, dot your first name"