Slashdot Mirror
Wildlife Defies Chernobyl Radiation
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports that wildlife has reappeared in the Chernobyl region even with high levels of radiation. Populations of animals both common and rare have increased substantially and there are tantalizing reports of bear footprints and confirmed reports of large colonies of wild boars and wolves. These animals are radioactive but otherwise healthy. A large number of animals died initially due to problems like destroyed thyroid glands but their offspring seem to be physically healthy. Experiments have shown the DNA strands have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction. It is remarkable that such a phenomenon has occurred contrary to common assumptions about nuclear waste. The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers"
We're fine until we have confirmed reports of colonies of large wild boars and wolves
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
I recall a certain knight... a black one... who expressed similar optimism in the face of suffering personal maladies.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
thats great about the wildlife , its a shame the same couldnt be said about the children and their offspring for generations to come, of course we need more power stations because they are the cheapest form of power, right ?
They have only whitnessed this over how many generations? I would imagine with every offspring, you have a handful more mutations. After a while, you have oatmeal.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I am sure there were horrible mutations at first, but mother nature has a strange ability to adapt rather well. I am sure their genetics are altered in strange ways, but I am sure they will live on.
He has found ample evidence of DNA mutations, but nothing that affected the animals' physiology or reproductive ability. "Nothing with two heads," he says.
It's as if the positive changes are being selected in favor of the negative changes.
... with a space elevator. Get it into space, then use a disposable cargo unit to send it towards the sun.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
the lead scientist was heard to say.
There are also footprints belonging to a giant, dinosaur-like creature.
I for one welcome our new radioactive bear overl...
wait...
That would make me a conformist to the mocking of conformity that is a slashdot hallmark... meaning a sheep.
Do radioactive bears eat sheep?
Doh.
Experiments have shown the DNA strands have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction.
As a biologist, this is some of the worst phrasing I've ever seen.
Godzilla vs Russian-Wolfzilla?
scary part is, migratory animals; imagine a goose with bird flu getting a few random extra mutations.
Hmm.. increasing mutation rates where they are already sky-high, as opposed to the conventional wisdom of minimizing exposure.
It's like adding nature to nature. I like it.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Not all damage to DNA from radiation is harmful. Cells have repair systems and can quickly repair breaks in DNA, with no long-term cellular consequence. Alternatively, the repair may not return the DNA to its original form, but may retain its integrity. If cellular damage is not repaired, it may prevent the cell from surviving or reproducing, or it may result in a viable but modified cell. These two outcomes have different results, leading either to deterministic or stochastic effects [Court of Appeals, 1999, pp. 37, 38].
Source: http://www.yuccamountain.org/price003.htm
Leaking tanks of high-level bombmaking waste have made a huge area undevelopable. The animals are pleased as punch with this state of affairs.
It's not hard to imagine many of the conceptions about radiation exposure may have been a bit over estimated, simply because nobody has really been willing to undergo an experiment of that caliber. I would not believe the animals are enjoying their radiation poisoning however until I was able to ask them.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
...before they finally get around to releasing S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Earlier in a village near the borders of the Amazon River, an entire village has seem to be eaten by mutated phirahna. Which apparently can now crawl on land....
"The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers"
Well now. This is one idea that the US can use to solve that whole "eminent domain to benefit businesses" problem.
"Experiments have shown the DNA strands have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction. It is remarkable that such a phenomenon has occurred contrary to common assumptions about nuclear waste."
Ummm... the animals are radioactive and their DNA has undergone considerable mutation. What exactly is contrary here to the common assumptions of radiological contamination? Sure matches my own assumptions.
Sure they can reproduce but I wouldn't exactly be jumping with glee over this "recovery". The damage merely has yet to express itself.
Though if any of the local turtles grow to human size and start dressing like ninjas, I'll take back everything I said.
build the rocket out of nuclear waste and fire that at the sun ;-)
A former Soviet Republic has developed Radioactive Bears?
Someone get Stephen Colbert on the phone right away! The world must be warned!
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
that human presence is more hazardous to wildlife than radiation.
Sig cannot be found.
Oh, wait.
Looooooooool, too bad there're no moderation points at hand when needed xD
I wonder how much of a factor evolution might be in the resistance of these animals (in addition to the overall decrease in radioactivity after the accident). For example, the article mentions that the first generation or two after the accident tended to have deformities, but current generations don't. Perhaps only the animals which were resistant to deformities were able to reproduce and pass on their radiation-resistant genes to the next generation?
One could test this by seeing if "control" animals from outside the Chernobyl area experience any problems in the area. If there are indeed strains with genetic resistance to radiation, it could be interesting to study, and could be useful knowledge for more futuristic things like genetically modifying radiation-resistant organisms for off-world food sources and terraforming.
Could radio active pollin spread and cause problems?
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
I am not that surprised really, that is what natural selection is about. The DNA coding for many genes also has quite a bit of redundancy built in, naturally with large radiation doses critical genes may be damaged, but given enough time favourable mutants will arise.
It reminds me of the large scale experiments done on plant breeding [1] where radioactive material was placed in the centre of a field of crops, and favourable mutants were selected. I love telling this story to anti-GE people, who probably eat plant products produced as a result of these experiments done predominantly in the 1970's. At least with GE only a single well studied change is being made.
[1] http://www.nias.affrc.go.jp/eng/gfs/index.html
Animal Overlord: Yea... I don't know how to quite put it. However, we already have someone opening the doors for us. Since of course we dont have opposible thumbs as of yet...
Cowering Human: I knew i shouldn't have gotten out of bed this morning....
This story was covered in this months (last months now? the next issue is due soon) National Geographic. Definately one of the better featured pieces of the last few months
FGD 135
Since these people could care less about destroying the worlds oxygen generators or polluting huge rivers with mercury and waste what makes one think they would care about selling people radioactive wood or even building on radio active land.
Give your head a shake.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Well, at least all the plants and animals in Iran will be okay once we're done with it. Cue references to 'Nausicaa and the Valley of the Wind'...
there are tantalizing reports of bear footprints
Actually it's not a bear, it's a really huge cat looking for a place to lay his 10,000 eggs.
I didn't found something funny to put here.
Most rain forest is inhabited. The article makes the usual stupid urban-centric assumptions about where the people we care about live. Maybe someone should suggest the waste needs to be buried in parks in the author's neighborhood (not really).
I still think the Sun is the best pace to dispose of the longer half-life (>100 yrs as very very unsafe) stuff.
as small does of radiation are much less lethal than small doses of humanity...
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
they wouldn't be there, but can you expect from a bird brain!
Obviously this means it is safe to put more pollution in drinking water and dump waste in the ocean.
Next thing you know, those mutated animals will be major producers of electronic equipment. As ADC asked, "What was in those bombs, fscking fertilizer?!"
Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
This gal's website has always fascinated me. She takes motorcycle trips right up to the Chernobyl reactor. She has been talking about the abundance of wildlife and vegetation need the reactor for years now. I completely forgot that Chernobyl actually operated as a functioning reactor for years and years after the meltdown of one of their units in '86. How would you like to have that job in the post-meltdown world? Forget the 30 foot bears...how about the 30 foot tumors spouting from the sides of your head. Here is her link: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm
Underneath the paws of the happy bears lies a secret base where slightly mutated men from Canada have their bones replaced with adamantium.
Get a load of this kitten http://www.thebucketheadshow.com/cc-common/feeds/v iew.php?feed_id=547&feed=/showstuff_feed.html&inst ance=1&article_id=62603
> The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of
> nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy
> developers and farmers
Well, that's not significantly more anti-human than passing laws preventing development of natural resources, is it? It's just more honest.
The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers
I'd say less controversial and more hysterical. Of course, were I one of the animals being exposed to that "developer repellent" I'd might feel a bit differently.
Larry Niven had some similar ideas, once upon a time.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Well, a lot of animals have life cycles under a year. Even bears don't often live past 20, right? And they become sexually mature and reproduce within a few years. The radiation wouldn't interrupt the life of short-lived animals.
So, not everyone living in an irradiated area will have their flesh falling off, but for us long-lifed humans, the life would be filled with more misery and an early ending. Maybe cancer at 20. And for normal human socities, "old farts" (those over 30) are really what drive the society.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
This is ENTIRELY hypothetical...
But say we take, I dunno, the whole planet...and just douse it in some radiation. Just enough to cause a variety of small, minor mutations in a very large (or the entire) population.
1) Any ones that result in sterility are gone, end of story...
2) Lots of small minor mutations is more like tickling the DNA, whereas massive exposure and major mutations is more like kicking it. This results in a greater survival ratio.
Transiently accelerate evolution, yanno? Maybe the dinosaurs didn't all die off, but collectively evolved one day when the magnetic poles flipped, dropping the protection from the Sun's radiation, and everyone was exposed to just a bit too much radiation. *shrugs*
Regardless, I think it's almost dishonorable not to study the effect radiation had on nature. Those poor cells are suffering, aren't they? Don't make them suffer for nothing.
:(){
I can't wait for hunting season, shouldn't be to difficult to spot a glowing bear!
The ones that lived had less corruption of the intelligent design.
That human populations are more destructive to the enviroment than nuclear waste which keeps the people away.
I seem to recall this has been predicted many many times in lots of different movies from the 50's. And they normally started out like this. A few sightings of unexpected animals in areas that are radioactive, then a farmer and his cows go missing followed by a few teenagers having a party late at night at the beach. This is normally followed by the local mayor ignoring the surviving teenagers and insisting on holding the founders day picnic regardless of the fantastic stories of 30 foot tall wild boars. It all ends badly for the idiot mayor but the good looking teenagers manage to survive while the cruel ones and the ones having casual sex get killed in various gruesome ways by the 30 foot tall wild boars.
I think I'll name it "Running Gag"
This article seems to take a different viewpoint than the recent greenpeace report.
I took classes from a professor studying worms and spiders in the Chernobyl area, and he found remarkable genetic mutations (e.g., changes in the number and size of chromosomes, large sections of additional DNA, etc.) and behavioral changes (e.g., worms switching to from asexual to sexual reproduction).
Since these organisms have such short lifespans, there have been ample generations since the nuclear accident for the organisms to go locally extinct or mutate into different species. But, that has not been the case. These local populations have continued to survive without deleterious effects on the population level.
Populations of organisms with longer lifespans may take longer to recover to pre-blast levels (although from the sound of the article and my previous knowledge the opposite has occurred) and may experience a genetic bottleneck effect (which may be countered by mutations), but genomes are resiliant and it is unlikely that the populations would never recover.
from a few weeks ago. They didn't breed those in Europe; they just caught a few Chernobyl ones. They would have got a bear too, but those things move amazingly fast on all eights.
There's potentially huge amounts of money to be made if the world 'switches' to nuclear electricity generation. There are strong vested interests in promoting nuclear technology as the successor to coal and oil.
I live in South Australia, which has approximately 30% of the world's known uranium, and if we started selling it, we could (as a state) make a ton of money - probably more than the goldrush that helped some other Australian states.
I've noticed a _lot_ of (what I would describe as) pro-nuclear articles recently, and I'd put this article in the same basket. I read this article as containing spin to make nuclear radiation/contamination sound less dangerous than it really is so that the public is less wary of adopting nuclear electricity generation, with the associated dumping of radioactive waste.
I'm all for having informed debate regarding the use of nuclear power, and it's possible that in some cases nuclear power is the best option currently available - especially if augmented with wind/tidal/solar power. I don't think we'll see such debate though - there's simply too much money involved.
So why are we surprised that any of this is happening?
I find your definition of 'trivial' ... disturbing. :|
Unfortunately her site has been shown to be fake. Yes, she took the pictures, but it was on the official, guided tours that are done in the area. (Note that no pictures inside the secure area include her motorcycle, and that there is clearly at least one other person along to take some of the photos.)
So enjoy the photos as undoctored, but take the entire story line with a large grain of salt.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Since no one else has bothered, I guess I get to be the bubble burster / troll answerer
The site's a fake. The girl does not do radioactive motorcycle trips into the heart of the chernobyl, and many of the pictures on the site are stock photos from other sources. Sorry.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Experiments have shown the DNA strands have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction.
Bull. The ones who have suffered reproductive damage DIED OUT.
I am sure the ground is perfectly solid. You must be talking about laws and regulations that have made the area undevelopable.
I'm all for development in these waste zones - what with the space program on hold, where else will we get X-Men type mutants?
It's 2006 for crying out loud! Never mind my flying car, I was also promised mutants!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
This isn't terribly suprising as the people exposed to this radiation and their offspring probably procreated with people who were not exposed. This would mean the introduced changes would be diluted every generation. I would not go and jump to the conclusion that our DNA have some undiscovered repairing abilities or some other "x-men" type ability...
I remember reading in Ukrainian press that there is a large number of people who returned to live in the Chernobyl zone ("The Zone" in local parlance, contaminated area around the Chernobyl reactor). These are mostly elderly people who lived there before the accident and were not happy with a new place where government moved them. One old woman was asked how she succeeds to survive on the contaminated food, contaminated water and contaminated milk from her cow. Her answer made me choke, she said: "I do not believe in radiation".
You will find that said person is giving speeches 60+ years later.
A lot of folks don't even live 60+ years without being nuked. How bad can it be?
"Experiments have shown the DNA strands have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction"
...
That to me sounds as an opportunity for an evolution leap. Most mutations will be bad and disappear eventually, but there is this slight chance that few others will be beneficial for the species and eventually dominate. I wouldn't be surprised if few hundrend years from now we end up with "Bear Chernobilus" that hibernates only half the time and has double the mating seasons
I have a hunch this is just some dysinformation put out to build up support for the Iran invasion. "Just nuke them - they will survive! And generations from now they will mutate to become Christians/Jews."
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
It's always struck me how "keep-out" zones like toxic waste areas (farm irrigation drains for instance, see Kesterson) and military bases have become wildlife refuges, simply for the reason that the public isn't allowed in to bother the wildlife or build. The best coral reef diving in the world? Bikini Atoll.
"DNA strands have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction."
'I'm not saying we wouldn't get our nose bloodied. I'm saying 20, 30 million dead, tops.'
I'm not fully against nuclear power, but I think it should be done far away from populated areas.
...you realise that they aren't bears, but giant mutant rats. And the boars used to serve up vodka at the local bar.
"The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
Just what we need, a radioactive sun.
Well, not here in the states anyway. The The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 mandates that nuclear waste be retrievable for 50 years after it's stored. I mean, there are pretty feasible/safe ways to dispose of it into the earth's mantle (basically: contain waste in concrete and bury it in a techtonic subduction zone), but since you (obviously) can't get it back, you can't do it. I suppose you could bury it far enough away that it woulnd't be swallowed before the 50 years is up, but then you'd have to judge how far that is and whether or not it's still close enough for it to end up being absorbed into the mantle.
Eh, just my two cents.
This sig rocks the casbah.
dispose of radioactive waste in the rainforest?
Wait a minute. so first we allow the existing species & trees to be lit up & die, then wait for new radiation-proof species to emerge?
Isn't the idea to keep the trees UP in the first place?
Furthermore, lions tigers & bears might come back quickly enough, but wouldn't trees take a few more... centuries?
That's the sound of the joke going over your head :)
Here's one of the surviving animals.
Yeah, this was definitely all over the colbert report already.
Ollld news.
"Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
Just in case anyone missed it the first couple of times it went through /., there's a great website a photographer put up of her trip through chernobyl - http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm
Really surreal and well worth a look.
You see, them scientist were wrong! Let's drink a cup of radioactive drink and nuke each other in celebration.
that part is prolly to attarct flamebaits, but
yeah, nuclear waste wherever but not in your own conuntry or correctly disposed.
what a shame. that is so obviously biased towards getting rid of nuclear waste that its shamefull.
i wonder who is this report for, and how closelly it will be followed.
lolz, nuclear waste to prevent thieves.. what a clowns, put it in your wallet then, prolly you will die, but your offspring wont!. azz/-/ole.
You can recover from a punch in the face too.
The acute and late effects of radiation are well worked out. See here for a start. It seems the doses are low enough now for the animals to not have to worry about dying outright. That does not spare individuals from cancer. Cancer is not seen because animals might not live long enough to develop it and for the same reasons the harmful mutations are not seen:
Mary Mycio, author of Wormwood Forest, a natural history of the Chernobyl zone, points out that a mutant animal in the wild will usually die and be eaten before scientists can observe it.
An animal with cancer will soon be another animal's lunch, but it will have done well to have not died some other way first. Nature is hard.
Pouring poison on the world is a bad idea. It will do horrible things to animals too.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Somehow I doubt he managed interview any of the wolves and boars to see how they feel about dying prematurely of cancer. Im sure people could live and reproduce there too, but it might raise a flag when they start dropping dead at 25 and 30.
It is known (although ignored in strict radiation regulations) that the same dose received in short time is much more harmful than the dose received during longer times. It is probably because the cells have repair mechanism that can cope with small damage over long time while cannot efectively repair large damage in short time. There are even indications that small doses can be beneficial by "training" the repair mechanism.
Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!
The mutations are apparentally harmless. But that does not mean that they won't eventually turn dangerous later. Also DNA mutations are unpredictable to the least so It is not smart to expect radiation to have the same effects twice
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Dr. Ian Malcolm: I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way.
(Can anyone guess the Movie or Book title?)
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I mean, have you ever been to Utah? Radiation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-boxed do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. Ought to have 'em, too.
He was a verray parfit gentil knight.
Too bad most of our knowledge of what happens when exposed to radiation doesn't come from guess work. It comes from the individuals who got sick and/or died working with radioactive materials before we understood the dangers. The ignorance of young people is indeed frightening.
Seriously, where are the flying cows, the mice the breath fire, the plants that have telekinesis, the bears that talk and wear French hats?
It's not hard to imagine many of the conceptions about radiation exposure may have been a bit over estimated, simply because nobody has really been willing to undergo an experiment of that caliber.
I think it's more of an issue that we don't see the critters that didn't make it. We only see the survivers. Perhaps say 90% died of horrid birth defects etc. They got eaten quickly and are out of site and out of mind.
It is almost like saying the Holocaust is not that bad because some did survive (with no Nazi reels left behind).
Table-ized A.I.
It's like adding nature to nature. I like it.
Somebody's going to get five points for successfuly building a Godzilla/Mothra/In Soviet Russia joke here.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It is not surprising at all that life continues and moves on. According to the known data the topology of the gene network follows the "small world" pattern. That is there are a few genes that connect to many others but on the _average_ the number of genes connected to any one gene is small. So when a mutation occurs it is most likely to occur in the genes that are not "hubs" and thus the regulation (and phenotype) is not severly altered. This means that the genomes of most animals can handle quite a few mutations. But if just one of those critical "hub" genes gets mutated it would result in death.
The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
I remember being back in the woods and seeing this wooden box filled with ticks.
I thought to myself, if you took a box full of bugs and sprayed them all with RAID, I'd kill 99.9% of them. But some freaks would survive. And after they reproduced to fill the box again, and you sprayed them again, you might only kill 75% of them the second time around. Continue this process until you get a box of bugs that RAID won't kill.
Um. In other areas of this thread, they are talking about glowing pigs and 30 foot bears...and you are calling me a troll? You are 100% sure her site is a fake? I guess I'll be off in the corner punching myself in the balls, then.
Well for one, I welcome our new radioactive killer bunny overloards!
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
> But say we take, I dunno, the whole planet...and just douse it in some radiation.
>
> Transiently accelerate evolution, yanno?
If by "transiently accelerate evolution" you mean "give lots of people cancer", then that'd probably work quite well. If you're looking for something more beneficial to humanity than millions of people dying in agony, well, I think you'd best keep looking.
Don't think that because animals can survive in the region it's somehow beneficial to them. They'd still survive and populate the region if you took a machete and hacked pieces off of each animal, but they wouldn't be "improved" by the process. "Crippled but alive" is an improvement over dead, but it's a far cry from "whole and healthy".
Don't mistake "not dead" for "new and improved".
It has been postulated that life wouldn't exist the closer one gets to the center of the galaxy because of the ambient radiation, and, in fact, a system with life would need to be positioned the same as our solar system is to avoid the radiation. But if life on Earth can adapt to high radiation so quickly, how much that does that improve the chances of life near the rim of the galaxy where the ambient radiation is higher but not so incredibly high?
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers
It would also keep away all those greedy eco-tourists and wacko environmentalists.
Somehow that's the funniest thing I've read all day.
I would not believe the animals are enjoying their radiation poisoning however until I was able to ask them.
The plus side is, perhaps after a few more generations of mutation, you might be able to.
I wonder if their first words will be "pizza?"
(my apologies to Eastman and Laird)
I wholeheartedly agree with the original post, because whether or not more harmful mutational effects spring up now doesn't mean they won't in the future, because we do know that radiation has very harmful effects. Combine that with our utter lack of understanding of genetic mutation (compared to say, gravity) and the increasing amounts of pollutants in the air and water, it's far better to be on the safe side and assume there will be more damage to come in the future. I find this to be a very scientific assumption, and any other assumption to be rather near-sighted and blindly optimistic; certainly, good can, will, and has come from terrible accidents and events, for example, if the US hadn't used slavery to become wealthy and develope the foundation to grow into a military super-power, who would've stopped Hitler (just to ruminate on historical possibility)? While it is, of course, noteworthy to appreciate the ability of the region's animals to survive through the radiation exposure, it is not a scholarly or wise approach to jump on the "Wow, everything's a-ok!" idea just yet.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
I for one welcome our new Radioactive Russian Squirrel masters.
Question: What's the distribution on the other 70%
Also, I know the basics on how fossil fuels were formed over time, how about Uranium/Plutonium and/or other radioactive or fissionable materials?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Dude, you people are insane. No, I take that back. You are correct, Mr. Slashdot poster. The entire scientific establishment has an agenda to hide the real benefits of radiation from us all. All those people working on the Manhattan Project were hypochondriacs.
I for one, welcome our considerably mutated, radioactive animal overlords.
StupidChildren...the reason jesus is crying
Somebody has already recommended disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers. If its always gonna be that the positive changes get selected in favour of the negative changes, can we have lots of natural waste disposed in a single forest to see the effect of fastened evolution. - Atif.Hussain@gmail
This means that even if we nuke Keith Richards point-blank, his cells will just reproduce from all those drugs...
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
No beach.
/.)
No mayor, either.
Couldn't say about teenagers having casual sex; they seem to turn up everywhere (except maybe on
Blank until
I will not disagree that the results of such a suggestion would be catastrophic to a significant portion of the exposed population.
There's an old saying, something about omelets and broken eggs.
Once again, I do not support or condone mass irradiation of earth. I merely hypothesize the effects.
:(){
Canada is the current largest producer at ... hmm ... 30%. 8-)
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
Let me assure you, this is no protection against greedy developers. In our own city (Chesapeake), there is a section called Deep Creek that had a dump. Said greedy developers wanted to develop said dump; local residents fought it on the basis of contamination and danger to homeowners. Said developer waited twenty years until said homeowners no longer had the strength or will to say said statements before the zoning board. Then the City Council quietly gave permission, after which a housing development was built upon said dump, and after that homeowners discovered trash and contamination under their houses. Said houses had to be destroyed, said developer profited and moved on, said city council bided their time, and in the end only the purchasers were hurt, as far as I know. Said greedy developers will not be stopped by so minor a thing as radiation in the way of their profit.
Enough said.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Gather around. Come one, come all. Time for the great DigiShaman to make a prediction... Ahem
Let see now. According to the extreme environmentalists, it's human activities that are causing the greatest harm to the planet. We also know that while radiation is bad for humans, it's not bad for natural life. Ergo, radioactive material is *good* for the planet.
Soon, I expect environmentalists (the extreme wacko kind, not all mind you) to endorse nuclear technology. Not just any technology, but the kind designed with shoddy engineering. You see, they need a "Trojan Horse" inside human civilization to lower our population count. Nuclear disasters are the way to accomplish this goal.
Life is not for the lazy.
they were young Godzillas...
...actually SEEN a girl with four breasts. As in up close personal seen. Two normal ones where they usually are, below them a set of undeveloped ones, basically just nipples. She liked them but couldn't wear a bikini at the beach, had to go full suit all the time.
there MUST be harm becase you KNOW that radiation causes it?
Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, but I would posit that being radioactive and having large portions of your DNA damaged could be classified by reasonable people as "harm". Just because you don't understand the way in which every piece of DNA functions does not mean that everything is fine.
It's a good thing there are so many people who disagree though. I think they should be allowed to move in to the restricted zone. I have no objection to your becoming radioactive, nor do I object to the wholesale modification of your DNA.
Either way...
Shitting on evil rainforest destroying farmers sure is easy as someone in a modern country with luxurious shit like desktop PCs and whatnot. These farmers hack, burn and plant to survive and have done for a very long time.
I don't know whether to call it sick or absurd that someone has considered introducing radiation strong enough posion natives out these desired forests. For the purpose of researching newly mutated radioactive versions of the fabled rainforest miracle cures and undiscovered species.
fecund around a LOT....
(image word: graduate.... hmmm)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Sure is nice when you need an extra hand, though.
Actually I once heard someone refer to this as "the Superfund solution."
I can't remember where I read/heard it, but it was referring to a hypothetical situation where your house was about to be taken away in order to allow someone to build a new mini-mall, or parking garage, or something else similarly obnoxious, because of some corrupt political maneuvering.
The suggestion being that when you think your house or land is about to be taken, you attempt to contaminate it in some way which would be extremely expensive to clean up, or dangerous to remove. I think the example I heard was reveal that your basement is filled with old transformers leaking PCBs, such that demolishing your house would release the contaminants in the concrete and bedrock. (This sounds suspiciously like it's based on the contaminated GE plant at Hudson River.)
There are any number of obvious problems with this, mostly related that anything dangerous enough to prohibit commercial redevelopment of a parcel would probably render it uninhabitable as residential property also, by any safe standard; plus it's not a particularly creative move and thus you'd be risking getting thrown in jail for it as well.
My thought is that you'd have to come up with some kind of legitimate thing that you could legally acquire and store, but which is toxic if broken and expensive to remove in quantity. Something perhaps like a whole barn full of fluorescent lamp tubes, or CRT computer monitors. Nobody in their right mind would want to go near that, thus it might be easier just to build around it. Although I think an area would have to be quite heavily contaminated to make redeveloping it unprofitable, and in the example, a well-connected developer would probably just be able to get tax money to decontaminate the site.
All in all, not a very bright plan. Anyway, just reminded me of that, though.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This is radio Jerevan. Ask us what you want, we will answer what we want.
We have been asked: What is the Soviet union's attitude towards wildlife preservation
Answer: We take it very seriously. Take the Chernobyl natural reserve for example - the west has nothing like it!
Right up until the villagers start getting attacked by PACKS of ATOMIC MUTANT BEARS! Then it's not so much fun anymore, is it?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I know there's an "in Soviet Russia" joke in there somewhere...
...is not because the science is inheritently dangerous or evil or destructive or anything like that.
The issue comes down to the inherent agricultural and economic weaknesses of monoculture crops. The economic incentives for farmers to become dependent on GM crops lead to antisocial and destructive outcomes.
The reason people should object to GM foods is that they are basically software patents on the things that keep us alive. It's an economic objection, not a scientific one. It's certainly not a religious one, and it shouldn't be treated with the distain people rightfully have for Christian luddites who reject evolution and global warming and so on.
What the fsck happened to "Stalker : Oblivion Lost"???
This is the Curse of Chernobyl!!
RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
you don't care about the individuals. There will be a lot of stillborn and failures to concieve and aborted births. There will be lesions, etc and cancers. However, for animals, these problems pale in significance to the damage having people around does.
For humans, if you have a child die from radiation damge, you'll sue.
Lammas can't get lawyers.
Increased level of Radiation will increase the rate of mutation and speed up evolution around Chernobyl. In thoushands of years Chernobyl animals will rule the world.
Was seems nice for animals would not be acceptable for human. I don't think that the reasercher have measured the number of miscariage.
Also it is natural that only a fraction of offsprings survive. the earlier they die (due to radiation damage), the easier for their parents to protect/feed the rest.
If you don't slow it up, you will have cargo turning around the sun about in the same way as the Appolo asteroids (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/ApolloA steroid.html). Unless slowed down properly, their orbits will always stay close to earth's orbit.
And guess what, some of those could come back to hit earth as a radioactive meteorites.
Not good.
So which one is more harmful to wildlife, radiation of human population? Maybe rest of the globe should be declared crisis area. Not chernie zone.
So, given that the bears have survived.. there should be no reason to send the remaining local people back and after a few generations, the fittest will have survived and all is good again. Ok, a few generations pass and theres the 6 finger script kiddies and mums with naturally green thin hair.. but again, wait awhile and all is good. Develop that land.. free energy, no need to wire up the light bulbs, just jam them in the ceiling.
To give a reliable overview, you'd have to track ALL the animals there and observe the population. Here is what you would find:
Some die instantly at the blast.
Some die within the next hours.
Some die within the next days/weeks/months.
Fertility goes DOWN, but those THAT have offspring will have a higher chance to raise them to maturity (less competition).
Again, of those some will die due to mutation.
Some will have a shorter life expectance. As long as they mature and can raise at least one generation of offspring, it's not so important.
Also keep in mind that quite a few animals CAN only raise one generation of offspring, they die after giving birth/laying eggs.
Bottom line, of course animals will survive, as a group. Humans would too, the body count would be incredibly high and the chance that YOU, as an individual, survive, is incredibly small. But as a species, you can fairly reliably survive a nuking.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Could it be? Could there be natural selection at work? Could evolution actually be right? God's gonna be very angry when he hears about this!
Humans are worst than radiation.
Read earlier threads in this topic, they point to links debunking her
Lives are cheap, therefore Life is always ready to give anything a try, whether it's living in radiation contaminated landscape, or ekeing out a slow motion bacterial existence in a rocky crack miles underground.
And, the bottom line is human beings are total bastards from the POV of other species. It isn't just that we eat them. It isn't that we take resources away from our competitors. It's that given our species adaptability, every other species are our competitors, and outmatched ones at that. We gobble up the environment, and the critters that are left we call "vermin".
So, on balance, having a radioactive landscape with no people in it looks pretty good.
Sure cancer is a bitch, but it beats starving to death.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
(posting A/C for privacy reasons)
My cousin has Hemophilia (unfortunately, he also got HIV through a blood infusion before they were testing, but that's an aside, except that it means he gets to be on all the newest treatment regimes)
Last year he went to get genetically scanned as part of some experimental gene-tailored thepary thing, and they found that he is the ONLY person in the entire world that has Hemophila at the specific gene location, and that the location was entirely unknown before him.
They traced it back to his mother, and from there to my grandfather, where the random mutation originates. Before having my Aunt, my grandfather was in WW2, and was a POW.
In Nagasaki. When the bomb went off.
Obviously not right IN there, otherwise he would have been toast. But he was right near it, and he saw the mushroom cloud.
And now there's a new strain of leukemia in the world, my cousin has got leukemia, and his sister is also a carrier, and so won't be having kids.
Spread across an entire species, we may well be able to adapt. But the effects are going to SUCK for a lot of individuals, and then we'll have to sped a shitload dealing with them. My cousin has probably cost millions to treat over his whole life (so far).
Not too surprised about this news. Somewhat similar in essence is the case with fruits and vegetables. In past I have come across couple of seedfull black grapes in a whole big bunch of seedless grapes.
We'd consider it wildly unacceptable if 1 in 10,000 people died over the course of 5 years.
Well, the number of people dying from auto accidents in the US is a little over 1 in 10,000. per year (see here. We tolerate that, primarily because driving is so useful to us.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
The Worm Guy?
Look out NY!
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Think of the CHILDREN!
The suggestion that radio active waste be dumped in Tropical Rain Forests, would likely meet favour with much of the pharmaceutical industry. Tropical rain forests, most noteably the Amazon rain forest, have an abundance of natural medicines. Perhaps some pharmaceutical giants feel that they have a vested interest in the destruction of these sources of natural medicines. That would be a real shame. Perhaps they should be analysing these natural medicines with a view to propagating them locally, rather than denying their existance and selling dangerous artificial medicines to people who live in the rain forests.
In any case, the motivation to slash and burn forest areas has not yet been superceded. So long as it is profitable (and as long as there is little alternative for the homeless and starving), Loggers, developers and the poor, will not be stopped by low level radiation. Only lethal radiation would be effective and that in itself may be counter productive.
Look at it another way. Ultrasonic pest deterants are only effective as long as there is insufficient motivation for rodents to endure the discomfort. If you leave your meatfeast pizza on the floor, mice will endure the discomfort and eat it anyway.
But yes, if only the native inhabitants eg., Amazon indians, were left and incomers were taken out of these areas, the future prospects for nature might be better.
My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
I come from Lithuania. Well, it's relatively far from the Ukraine but not too far to avoid the passing radiation cloud. At the time of the disaster I didn't exist but I was born almost exactly 9 months later.
Now I am allergic to lots of things (including food, dust, etc). Moreover, I have asthma. Well, I know that it's considered to be a disease of the cities but it's however weird as I'm the first in my family and Vilnius (city where I was born and where I live) isn't / wasn't too much polluted, all the more in the 80s.
I've always wondered where my current health state was conditioned by Chernobyl. Could anyone explain if my mum is right when she laughingly calls me "Chernobyl kid"? Is it possible that a radiation cloud could affect the embryon? Personnaly, I do think that there is some truth in her words but it's only that I think. I'm not very talented in medicine, you know...
Some even call me mad. And why? Because I dared to dream of my own race of atomic monsters, atomic super boars with octagonal shaped bodies that suck blood...
The scientists say that life evolved on Earth about 4 billion years ago, when, compared to today, there was twice as much U-238 in the crust, eight times as much K-40, and maybe forty times as much U-235. If Life could not have handled that amount of background radiation, it would not have survived. In the short term Chernobyl may have exceeded ancient levels, but those short-life radioactives have mostly decayed now, and the quantities of longer-lived nuclides apparently (according to Original Article) is only challenging Life with stuff that genes managed to handle long long ago. That's good, except now some idiot is going to think it is "safer" to have a nuclear war, than is usually thought....
What really concerns most people is the lethal potential of an energy source through the course of normal use and when (not if) accidents happen.
Through normal use, fossil fuels may have a large lethal potential via global warming (the dangerous part of which is less predictable climate for agriculture, but that's another story) and even through air pollution affecting long term health. But the lethal potential from accidents is small: only a handful of people die if a refinery or oil rig goes to hell.
Through normal use, nuclear energy has a smaller lethal potential. But the lethal potential from accidents is huge: tens of thousands of people could die if a nuclear power plant goes to hell Chernobyl style.
Those "alternative green" sources of energy have low lethal potential through both normal use and accidents. And that is what makes them so attractive.
Even if the radiation kills a larger fraction of animals in the area than normal, the ones that survive continue to proliferate, or new ones move in from surrounding areas and re-establish populations. The selection process weeds out the ones with the most serious negative mutations, and leaves the neutral and/or positive ones. More importantly, even if the mortality rate might be higher here, there are no humans in the area. It's like a wildlife park.
:-)
This leads to a simple conclusion: humans are far worse for wildlife than radioactive contamination is
From a dose assessment aspect, this is no surprise at all. The initial release was horrible on the wildlife populations; however, take a base assumption that biological effects of radiation differ for all species. As the Russell's found out in their "mega mouse" experiment at Oak Ridge, what is harmful to mice isn't necessarily harmful to humans and same thing with bears, deer, pigs, birds, etc. The initial release consisted largely of I-131, Cs-134/7, Sr-90, tritium, some actinides, and some other shorter lived fission products that primarily followed a modified gaussian plume model for the initial distribution to the air/soil. The I-131 was a huge dose at first, but with an 8 day half life, it was gone after a few weeks. Also keep in mind that not all species have large iodine uptake to the thyroid as do humans, so the initial release of I-131 would not have affected local populations as much in the first few weeks while the I-131 was still present. The Cs-134 and tritium is gone as well, and the Cs-137 will be around for another 100 years if the initial estimates were correct. Cross sectional species tests for osteosarcoma should be done to check for effects of Sr-90 in the bone to see how healthy the animals truly are (leukemia and blood disorders could be present), but even Sr-90 drops straight to the water table and I doubt these animals are drinking out of wells so their water supply is relatively clean compared to what a human would expect there. The external dose from actinide contamination in soil is extremely low as well, not as low as uranium ore, obviously, which is the standard, but still low enough not to cause a problem to wildlife since the uptake factor to plants is very low for actinides since they're so massive and the chemistry doesn't allow much at all. That said, leaves coated with dust from the fallout would be a large addition to the soil/vegetable ingestion dose for animals, but after a few generations of plants and many rinses in rain would render the leaves relatively clean of actinides. Nature finding a way to survive isn't surprising at all.
Considerable mutations? Radiactive, but otherwise healthy? Uh huh... I am sure this is not what Darwin had in mind when he wrote about evolution. This is the sort of thing that you see in the movies.
Back in 1997, an archaeologist made an illegal field trip into the Nevada Test Site, making his way past armed guards, skirting underground blast areas, getting surprisingly close to Area 51, and nearly dying of thirst. I'm amazed that he made it out alive and didn't get arrested!
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
"He went on: 'I have wondered if the small volumes of nuclear waste from power production should be stored in tropical forests and other habitats in need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by greedy developers'."
I wonder what the effects of something like this would be? Sounds like an interesting idea on the surface...
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
... until the animals can reply your questions!
Why can't
Greenpeace should go over there and SAVE THEM!
(Note: this was sarcasm.)
this is great news from a terrible past. hopefully they don't see this as a green light to make this area a dumping ground for nuclear waste.
There you go Intelligent Design wackos.
Oh wait, no, you're going to claim this is the work of God.
*sigh*
This would be a great setting for a horror film :)
Sherm
Darwin had his finches and Chernobyl has it's radioactive mutant boars and bears.
It will be interesting to see how ID advocates have to say about this....
...radioactive animal overlords welcome YOU!
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
Once the animals start walking on two legs and communicating at a "higher" level, we can truly call this Gamma World beta!
Capture them and put a Frikk'n Laser on thier forhead. Perfect.
The chronic effects of the lingering radioactivity may not show for a long time.
I think the evidence presented (if true) says more about the general influence of people than it does about the health effects of radioactivity. Human occupation is seriously disruptive to the biodiversity of an ecosytem.
What this shows is not that radiation is harmless to wildlife but rather that human occupation is so devastating to wildlife that merely having to put up with high levels of radioactivity is a relief by comparison.
I wonder if what's really going on here is that humans live long enough to be troubled by the Chernobyl - and so have all buggered off - while the animals can expect to die young from unrelated causes anyway, and love Chernobyl because there are no people around.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
That they're able to breed faster than the radiation can kill them is... I don't know if that's better or worse, actually. I don't know that I'd use the word "encouraging." I'm thinking something like "gruesome."
...or maybe not.
It's the sound of the joke whizzing over your head
enough said.
It works because everyone's scared for HIS/HER life. No terrorist movement could EVER cause substantial damage to the US as a whole, or its population. But there's a chance that YOU, yes YOU there, could be singled out as a target and blown to pieces.
That's why terrorism works. And that's why the scare of it works, that's why everyone's accepting the "tightening of security" (or the erosion of freedom, as I prefer to call it), that's why the current legislation gets away with taking essential civil liberties away from its people.
In fact, terrorism is by far better for the ruling body than the cold war ever was. It cannot damage the country essentially, even in worst case scenarios where everyone's going completely nuts, but it's a very convenient excuse to push about any oppressive law through without any resistance.
If people weren't so afraid to die, they could live more freely.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/. Beautiful and scary at the same time.
Subtly introducing flaws into a nuclear reactor design takes a lot of time and effort (and a lot of dead QA engineers along the way according to Dr. Who).
Why bother when there are faster ways. I think you'll find there will be a lot of groups keen on creating the first "Dirty Bomb Nature Reserve".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"I have wondered if the small volumes of nuclear waste from power production should be stored in tropical forests and other habitats in need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by greedy developers".
Anyone else find that a bit troubling that its even an idea to concider?
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Ill Peasant: I'm new and improved! I don't want to go on the cart.
Peasant #2: You're not fooling anyone y'know!
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
No. Comic books are for super heroes developing in a spontaneous way *completly new* and *very complex* super powers over a short period of time ("atomic-protection-force-field-kinesis". Add you favorite "Bat-"/"Super-"/whatever-else prefix),
Here, you have some very special conditions :
- We're talking about wild life, which has a much more shorter generation time compared to humans (you may count a couple of years before reproduction as stated by another poster. And less than ten years as an average life span).
- We're talking about animal that survived there. The non-fit mutant probably died and got eaten, as with normal base-line mutation that happens everywhere else. Except maybe here the predators have more weak preys to hunt and eat. (Which in turn may help them survive better).
- We're talking about a radioactive environment.
And some of the mecanics involved in acquiring better resistance in a radioactive place aren't that much complex and hard to acquire :
- Normally, every animal or human (or other diploidic life form) has 2 copies of whatever gene, one on each chromosome of a pair (with the single exceptions of the sexual pair - ie XY in mamals). There are even some critical stuffs that are coded by several genes scattered across the genome. And some critical metabolic processes are protected by several check points corresponding to several different proteins.
This redundancy, in a normal environement helps the survival even if one copy is damaged.
On the other hand, such individuals with only 1 functionnal copy left are more susceptible in a radioactive environment : in case of mutation they're toast because their other copy is fucked up.
So you have a stronger selection against such "damage but silent deffects". You get more individuals born with all copies intact and they can cope better against mutations.
- Cells have a lot of mechanism to protect genome (and other cell components) against damage. I won't be surprised if those tchernobyl animals have higher concentration levels of various DNA-fixing enzymes (and antioxidant and other damage-repair or damage-detecting stuff). Changing the concentration of something is not a complexe mutation.
- In a cell, there is a competition between two solution when facing a defect : either try to repair the damage or commit suicide. Maybe the tchernobyl animals have variant of enzyme with a mutation that slightly change balance in favor of cells commiting sepuku (which means slower animal growth, but more defects are reject before they piles up and kills the animal)
- Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe evolution and mutation don't exist. Maybe I.D. are right and there are small angels flying beside the animals sent by a deity to protect them from the effect of a catastrophe in which the poor animals are inocent.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Shut up.
"Natural Selection." Ooooh! "Competition." Oooo. Big fucking deal. Who cares? Why endlessly spout one version of how things sort-of work? (While ignoring, of course, all elements of the bigger picture which don't fit the neat little theory.) --What is the advantage to this kind of chest thumping? Would it be any different if I were to walk around randomly declaring, (with an insufferably superior attitude), "Cups hold water better if you hold them upright"?
It's just another bit of internal dialogue leaking out around the edges. The desire to re-affirm one version of the world by re-describing it endlessly.
Shut UP.
Thank-you.
-FL
This isn't really evolution at work, because the decay and dilution of the isotopes happens so rapidly. Nor is this new.
Every time a plant goes critical we get another wildlife refuge!
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
The two responses you already got could not make my point any better. The point being, that movie quote is an insult to the /. community, we are so much more advanced than that. Come on, give us a hard one man! ;)
Something like...
"Good thinking about that spider, Cole. Try and do something like that again."
I don't think that this means that radiation is good for the environment. It just means that humans are worse for the environment. In a strange way, this makes for a good environmental arguement for nuclear power. If the plant works, we have a souce of power free of greenhouse gasses. If a large region is contaminated, people leave, and you have a wildlife preserve.
GODZILLA!!! Seriously I expect some kind of freakishly mutated super animal to come crawling out of Chernobyl. Hopefully it is something cool like a Dunish Giant Sand Worm!
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
I don't know the common assumptions about nuclear waste, so can you enlighten me?
And what does nuclear waste have to do with Chernobyl? Please explain that.
...that animals (and humans, for that matter) can, given time, develop resistance to ionizing radiation?
after all, it's known that the animals that currently roam the Chernobyl area are perfectly capable of reproducing, and do not appear to have any visual defects?
maybe they've undergone a mutation that somehow protects their organs (e.g.. thyroid) from radiation. if that is the case, maybe humans will eventually become tolerant to radiation as well.
maybe in a 100 years or so, danger from a radioactive fallout would be comparable to a really nasty oriental food fart.
just my 2 roubles...
--- sig moved for great justice.
Or, put another way, if the intelligent design crowd just went away and died we'd all be happy...?
Maybe. Some of nonID folks still with have something to bother them and make them unhappy.
But in case of the ID theory being right and in case of your scenario (ID crowd dying) I'm quite sure those ID folks would be (partialy) happy (partialy = those who make it to the heaven). :)
hany
The idea that people have that radioactivity can lead to cool or useful mutations like extra arms, eyes, night vision, etc. on a biological organism always amuses me. It's like shooting a computer with bullets and expecting it to sprout an extra USB port or for the software to suddenly have a new game installed. What you very often get is a beaten up computer which would be lucky to work.
Who is surviving nuke? Bear is surviving nuke! How can that be!?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
you can take the animal out of nature, but you can't take the nature out of the animal. Hell, even if the bears only had one leg, they would still hump.
OMG Bearzilla
Nah, I think I'll wait for the mutant OMG pony.
How to enable garbage collection on a system without protected memory: #define malloc() ((void *) rand())
Don't know if it's true but I hear that Chernobyl now has a small (but growing) population of elderly South Koreans. I seems that they are attracted by the various kinds of wild animals which they can talk to. One such elderly South Korean suggested that I ask his pet wolf for directions to the nearest McDonalds'. I asked. The directions were correct in English, French, Mandarin, and Russian. Who says evolution is impaired by a little radiation ? Bring on the "Radiation Generation" I say !
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
And your sex life ? You left out the most interesting part !
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
In a free country, one may think as one may wish - even if there should be more than one of us thinking. I too can use an impersonal pronoun in my native language - but, as a "man" I might want to run for it "on" seeing it coming. Then again, I might not !
It seems a bit like posting anonymously, one thinks (and I think so too !)
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
The original wolves and boars also came from somewhere. And, they're continuing to come from somehwere. This would constitute a continuing stream of relatively undamaged DNA going into the animal gene pool to dilute the damaged stuff. And, conversely, a steady stream of damaged DNA migrating back out to the outside world. We may see those giant Ant Overlords yet!
Chernobyl doesn't exist on an Island out in the Pacific. Thus, what is happening there cannot be assumed to be definitive about what happens to animals exposed to high continuous doses of radiation...
Fundamentalism is a crime against humanity
I do wonder though whether you could "harden" a species over time using some sort of selective mutation and breeding program to make them more suitable for space travel, though ... probably more work than just shielding the ship properly.
I don't think so, you need a lot of energy to lift and accelerate a spaceship and every ounce saved is great. The humane way to do it would probably to study radiation protection mechanisms in bacteria and animals first and then insert these genes into the human genome.Tibetans, exposed to more radiation from the heights, also would probably be great taikonauts, it would be foolish of the Chinese to try to create a mixed Tibetan population.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Mmmm thank you, I'm actually impressed by these replies. I think the problem is that nuclear power was never demonstrated to be safe or cost-competitive here in the US and there are a number of worldwide accidents which suggests that the technology itself is a delicate single-point-of-failure.
I don't think US politicians are ready for nuclear power and if that's the greenies fault then they are doing a good job. These are the same pols who can't handle airline security or stand up to rigged elections or fake intelligence on Iraq.
I think the French will be beating us on nuclear power for some time. The French seem to be about $1-2 trillion ahead of us (accounting for our larger population) plus the benefit of knowlege.