Nuclear Mutant Flies Are Good For Africa?

D\monix writes "According to this article in Reuters, the International Atomic Energy Agency is going to start releasing massive numbers of tsetse flies "sterilized by a burst of radiation" into sub Saharan Africa in order to outnumber and thus eradicate the local fly population. My favorite quote? "The impact of the fly is difficult to exaggerate." You're damn right it is. Anyone else out there think pumping large numbers of mutant insects into the environment might be a bad idea?"

Comments

Atomic Who?

[inKubus]

Why would an Atomic Energy organization care about flies in Africa? They aren't planning on building giant nuclear power plants across all of Africa and then piping the electricity into Europe, are they? I mean, we wouldn't want the thousands of construction workers getting diseases from exotic flies. It's going to be the next Panama canal. There's a lot of Uranium in Africa also. And with those superconducting power lines, boy. This could be quite a moneymaker. Wonder if Enron knows anything about this.

Cheers

Sterilized is does not make it a "Mutant"

[Shivetya]

Sorry, but the over the top claim that these are mutant flies begs a response.

The idea is that after the attempt to eradicate with pesticide is used these sterile flies are released to compete with non-sterile flies for mating privledges. Since the mating window is short the time occupied by these sterile flies should help reduce the reproductive capability of the swarms.

Too many people die from the disease they carry, and ignorant ranting about it does these people a big disservice.

Unfortunately it is a very common tactic of the eco-terrorist groups to portray something in the harhest possible light even when they know they are lieing. Seems that sometimes they think their view is more important than the lives of the people who could be saved.

Re:The principle concept eludes me

[Hammerself]

It could increase their resistance to the "Mutant Flies" tactic, in general. Females who favor non-altered males will be the ones to pass on their genes. It could result in the next generation(s) having more discriminating tastes in choosing a mate. I don't know if this would have a huge effect in this case. I suppose it would depend on if it were possible to distinguish the "mutated" flies from normal ones.

I wonder if you could apply the concept to dilute undesireable traits in vermin populations. You could breed generation after generation of animal with the most annoying traits, sterilize them, and release them into the wild. After a while the species would tend to select against these attributes. Could this work? I'm not a biologist/ecologist.

Drawbacks to eradicating the tsetse?

[codeButcher]

Shamelessly copied from: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s11 64.htm :

1000 years ago Tsetse halted muslim migration south. Last century it plagued European colonial governments and today it impedes development of large areas . Some species affect humans, but many other species affect cattle and in a bad year can kill 100% of a herd. With Africa's spiralling population African govts, eg Kenya and Zimbabwe, are keen to control the fly so that land tsetse previously rendered unable to be cultivated can be developed. Scientists how sucessfully developed very environmentally benign ways of controlling the fly and have started projects with groups such as the Masai. Conservationists warn this ironically may harm the environment, by reducing the percentage of land set aside to preserve bio-diversity.

Seems to me that completely eradicating these species would be a bad thing for Africa's ecology and bio-diversity.

Re:The principle concept eludes me

[hij]

Many animals experience something called the "Alee Effect." If you can drive down the population to a small enough number then they will eventually die out. For example, maggots can feed more efficently in large groups. If their numbers are low enough it then becomes more difficult to feed which lowers their probability of survival.

The problem here is that insects are notorious for getting through these sorts of "bottlenecks." They are much better adapted to recover from small numbers than larger animals (especially the charismatic mega-fauna that we all know and love).

They can spend a boat load of money to have the population reduced for a few years, but the population has a very high probability of bouncing back to its current levels.

Survival of the ...prettiest

[Hooya]

Why do we fight to protect pandas from extinction but are hell bent eradicating these flies? Why is one species more elligible for our protection than others? If it's because pandas don't harm people, what about tigers? Maneating tigers have become quite common in various parts in India and Nepal. Yet we still protect them. Is the eligibility for protection-from-extinction based on how pretty they are? Are scientists being too shallow? If it's protecting a species is what we're concerned about, shouldn't flies weigh in just as much as tigers,pandas,rhinos etc..? Seems to me we are trying to touch-up the natural picture by taking out ugly pesky things and hilighting the pretty looking ones. I'd say we're playing 'artist' (as opposed to playing god...) and not being scientific at all about this.

Re:Survival of the ...prettiest

[Tailhook]

"We" have been fighting to protect nearly any form of life that could possibly be considered "endangered" since "we" became wealthy enough to afford such concerns. From tiny and quite ugly reptiles to the largest of mammals, "we" have proven our limitless capacity to "protect." More important, I think, is the question of who you mean by "we?" Does your "we" include the half million native Africans slated to die prematurely from some miserable bug?

You see, these folks aren't wealthy enough to have the luxury of making distinctions between "pretty" and "ugly" species. So I have to conclude that your "we" excludes these folks. If so, I wonder why you choose to ignore the concerns of millions who lack the wealth and freedom you enjoy. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute this disregard as simple ignorance and not intentional malice.

Your "we" seems to include only those with the luxury, freedom and spare time to attempt changing our environment according to some agenda. Left to you, it appears that "we" would leave these native Africans to deal with the flies and the death they cause as best they can to satisfy the conscience of your "we." This is selfish beyond all measure. Screw you and your ignorant twisted little conscience.

Pandas aren't killing people, they are being killed. Tigers are killing in tens, not hundreds of thousands. You employ the same sort of false analogy as our intrepid poster who calls the sterilized flies "mutants." Sorry, there are folks about who are bright enough to see the through your boilerplate exaggerations. The more you do this the less effective it becomes.

It's spelled "eligible".

Re:Been done already for many years...

[coolgeek]

In California, I'd say releasing the sterile (by irradiation) Med Fly was preferable to spraying the entire human populations with Malathion. And apparently much more successful.

Mutations

[GrimSean]

The majority of the flies put through this process will be sterilized, and the remainder most likely will be mutated, however this doesn't necessarily mean that the mutation will be viable. Most people seem to think that if something 'mutates' it automatically lives. This is not true - the majority of mutations are quite deadly, if not to the fly that is being zapped then to it's progeny. DNA is VERY unforgiving to changes, folks - one incorrect Amino Acid in a sequence means a proteinis formed that could be horrendiously different from the original, so much so that the organism cannot continue to function normally.