Slashdot Mirror


Radiation-eating Fungi

SEWilco writes "Fungus growths have been found in many extreme environments, including the Chernobyl reactor walls. Some fungi have been found whose growth is enhanced by radiation. I wonder if someone saved samples of the MIR-eating fungi."

192 comments

  1. My foot is an extremity by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

    not an extreme environment you insensitive clod

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:My foot is an extremity by The13thSin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well that depends... do you have a shower?

      --
      "This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
    2. Re:My foot is an extremity by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

      Annually.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    3. Re:My foot is an extremity by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    4. Re:My foot is an extremity by rvw · · Score: 1

      Well that depends... do you have a shower? I heard that the golden shower is actually quite effective. Just apply it to your foot, that's all! (Or call Ricky Martin although he probably won't "show" :-P)
  2. Danger! (Evolution) by nebaz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Eventually, the bacteria will evolve into this.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:Danger! (Evolution) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Eventually, the bacteria will evolve into this. Why do you hate America? Evolution is a myth and is nothing more than an attack on God and the American Way of Life.
    2. Re:Danger! (Evolution) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I was half expecting that link to be a pic of GWB

    3. Re:Danger! (Evolution) by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wake up -- America is already in the hands of the Darwinists. Haven't you watched any TV or movies lately? It's everywhere, treated as fact.

      Want to help change this sad state of affairs? Join my project; we're redoing popular video games to remove the ungodly influences imposed on them by modern society.

      "Look! Pikachu is being intelligently designed!"

      --
      "'If one must live then one must die.' - oh, the truth must be funnier than this..." -- MammÃt
    4. Re:Danger! (Evolution) by genner · · Score: 1

      Pikachu was intelligently designed. Raichu is the evolved form.

    5. Re:Danger! (Evolution) by Genjurosan · · Score: 1

      And it seems that the Holocaust is a myth and is nothing more than an attack on God and the Islamic Way of Life.

      http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/05/24/1326241.shtml

    6. Re:Danger! (Evolution) by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Pichu was intelligently designed. Pikachu evolves from Pichu, and Raichu evolves from Pikachu. Get your made-up evolutionary pathways right, dammit!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    7. Re:Danger! (Evolution) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you wonder why people think Americans are idiots...

    8. Re:Danger! (Evolution) by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      As an American, I don't wonder at all. I know exactly why people think we're idiots.

      Unfortunately, there's not a lot I can do at this time to make my countrymen more intelligent or at least less ignorant. On behalf of my fellow intelligent Americans, I apologize to the rest of the world for our moronic compatriots.

      Would any British like to apologize for the morons in their country, such as the ones who want to ban knives, or the ones who won't teach about the Holocaust because it might offend some Muslims?

    9. Re:Danger! (Evolution) by Rockin'Robert · · Score: 0

      Stairs?
      What-stairs?
      Which-stairs.
      His stairs?
      Who's stairs.
      Damn! Foiled again.
      http://images.google.com/images?q=dalek
      RR

  3. hyphenation by onemorehour · · Score: 3, Informative

    Radiation is eating Fungi? I think you might have wanted: "Radiation-eating Fungi," especially in a headline. Consider: "Insect eating plants."

    1. Re:hyphenation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Radiation is eating Fungi? I think you might have wanted: "Radiation-eating Fungi," especially in a headline. Consider: "Insect eating plants." Don't be silly. You would want radiation to eat fungi. Think of it this way: when you find mildew in your shower all you have to do is pull out your 20 curie Co-60 test source and it would go away. And as an added benefit you could perform radiography on your pipes* and have a full dental x-ray at the same time.

      *pun intended
    2. Re:hyphenation by IQgryn · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'll call your grammar mastery and raise you one Venus Flytrap.

    3. Re:hyphenation by jimmux · · Score: 1

      Or the common example, "Man eating shark".

    4. Re:hyphenation by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      Firefox is an airplane.....in Soviet Russia, no less.
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083943/

      Layne

    5. Re:hyphenation by Runefox · · Score: 1

      Not an actual one. The closest thing (in name) is the MiG-25 Foxbat and MiG-31 Foxhound. The plane in the movie, IIRC (been a while since I've seen it), looks like a cross between the MiG-31 Foxhound and the MiG 1.44/1.42 MFI ("Raptor Killer").

      But hell, this one's got Clint Eastwood at the controls, who lands it on a freaking ice floe. Neither of the two real-world planes can compete with that.

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    6. Re:hyphenation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....and raise you one Venus Flytrap. Sorry... too late.... I'm already dating one.
    7. Re:hyphenation by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia Foxes Fire You!

  4. Fungi Monsters by Ice+Wewe · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I salute our new radioactive overlords!

    1. Re:Fungi Monsters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ladies and gentlement our course is clear. The time has come to knuckle under--to get down on all fours and really lick boot and give our radiation eating fungi masters whatever they want.

    2. Re:Fungi Monsters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't want to make this fungus angry. You really don't want to make this fungus angry!... Fungus ... SMASH!

    3. Re:Fungi Monsters by JContad · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pshaw. They got nothing on fat, italian plumbers.

    4. Re:Fungi Monsters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention their taller thinner brothers.

  5. radiation-enhanced growth worries me by artifex2004 · · Score: 0

    Do we need a giant fungus, among us?

    1. Re:radiation-enhanced growth worries me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You shouldn't talk about Ballmer like that...he's likely to throw a chair or something.

    2. Re:radiation-enhanced growth worries me by xaositects · · Score: 1

      Do we need a giant fungus, among us?

      Sure, Elvis needs a passenger in Bigfoot's UFO...

    3. Re:radiation-enhanced growth worries me by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      You mean, a humungous fungus among us?

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    4. Re:radiation-enhanced growth worries me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gives a whole new meaning to 'mushroom cloud'

    5. Re:radiation-enhanced growth worries me by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Could you please cut out that kingdomistic crap? The fact those fungi aren't sentient are no justification for harrassing our poor, evolution-impaired friends!

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:radiation-enhanced growth worries me by SailorRipley · · Score: 1

      I wonder....are those fungi ramen or varelse?

      --
      Chance favors the prepared mind...especially when you Question Authority
    7. Re:radiation-enhanced growth worries me by Rockin'Robert · · Score: 0

      The one-eyed man is Ron Paul
      RR

  6. Does anyone proof-read these? by Volfied · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Without the hyphen between "radiation" and "eating", the title means the exact opposite of its intent.

    1. Re:Does anyone proof-read these? by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      It might be even worse than not proofreading, as I'm pretty sure that I included the hyphen in the headline which I submitted.

    2. Re:Does anyone proof-read these? by elakazal · · Score: 1

      Actually, would the exact opposite by "Radiation not eating fungi"? Or "Non-radiation-eating fungi"?

  7. Radiation Eating Fungi by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is a huge crisis. If radiation keeps eating fungi at this rate we'll have no mushrooms left by 2040!

    1. Re:Radiation Eating Fungi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame global warming.

    2. Re:Radiation Eating Fungi by emjoi_gently · · Score: 1

      That's "not mushroom".
      We'll have not mushroom by 2020.

    3. Re:Radiation Eating Fungi by falconcy · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...and there was me wondering why nukes make a mushroom cloud!

    4. Re:Radiation Eating Fungi by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      This is a huge crisis. If radiation keeps eating fungi at this rate we'll have no mushrooms left by 2040!


      Indeed so -- and we all know that massively irradiated areas are where all humans like to forage for fungi!
  8. OH NOES! by Cheezymadman · · Score: 0, Funny

    Fungus Amongus!

    --
    We're all going to die. i intend to deserve it.
  9. I can't resist... by Pinkfud · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'M IN UR REACTOR EATIN UR FUELZ! Now to be serious, radiation resistant bacteria are also known. If mankind ever wipes itself out with nukes, it's comforting to know the world won't be a totally dead place. Everything will start all over, and who knows what will happen next time.

    --
    The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
    1. Re:I can't resist... by StryfeX · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the dolphins WON'T leave this time.

    2. Re:I can't resist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cockroachs!

    3. Re:I can't resist... by Himring · · Score: 1

      You entirely failed to mention that keith richards is radiation resistant too and would continue to exist along side the fungi....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    4. Re:I can't resist... by C0rinthian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the fungi wouldn't survive in close proximity to Keith Richards.

  10. Original headline was correct... by raehl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remember, Chernobyl was in Soviet Russia.

    1. Re:Original headline was correct... by Xofer+D · · Score: 1

      Er, Ukraine. Chernobyl is in Ukraine. Ukraine most definitely is not Russia.

      --
      The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
    2. Re:Original headline was correct... by weapon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Er, Ukraine. Chernobyl is in Ukraine. Ukraine most definitely is not Russia. Yes these days Chernobyl is in Ukraine, which is not in Russia, but in 1986 when the melt down occurred, it was in Russia and back then it was Soviet Russia, the the GP was correct:

      Remember, Chernobyl was in Soviet Russia. and that's my two cents
    3. Re:Original headline was correct... by slashdotmsiriv · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Er, Ukraine. Chernobyl is in Ukraine. Ukraine most definitely is not Russia.", "Yes these days Chernobyl is in Ukraine, which is not in Russia, but in 1986 when the melt down occurred, it was in Russia and back then it was Soviet Russia, the the GP was correct: Remember, Chernobyl was in Soviet Russia. and that's my two cents" Er, Ukraine was a _state_ in the Soviet _Union_, thus Chernobyl was in Soviet Ukraine, not Soviet Russia

    4. Re:Original headline was correct... by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1, Insightful

      WHAT?!? A /. post involving the words "Soviet Russia" that isn't a backards Russia joke? Heresy!

    5. Re:Original headline was correct... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      exactly. in soviet union russia was the russian soviet federative socialistic republic, ukraine was ukrainian soviet socialistic republic and so on.

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    6. Re:Original headline was correct... by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Baah. It is all Russia, the same way Scotland and Wales is part of England, and Rotterdam part of Holland.

      This renaming trick is just a convenient way to avoid badboy-points.

    7. Re:Original headline was correct... by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Scotland and Wales are in no way a part of England, they are all a part of Great Britain.

    8. Re:Original headline was correct... by caluml · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it was in the Soviet Union, in the Ukraine.

    9. Re:Original headline was correct... by daem0n1x · · Score: 5, Funny

      Scotland and Wales are part of England???

      Not only that's totally false, but I'd like to see your face minutes after you said that in loud voice at a pub in Edinburgh.

    10. Re:Original headline was correct... by monk.e.boy · · Score: 1

      What? A look of utter confusion as the locals grunt some sort of language at him?

      :P

      monk.e.boy

    11. Re:Original headline was correct... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      more like (but not exactly like) great britain and netherlands are both parts of european union.

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    12. Re:Original headline was correct... by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      and Rotterdam part of Holland.
      I'm a proud monarchy-loving citizen of the Netherlands and I can confirm this.
      I can also confirm that Amsterdam is slated to be cut off from the Netherlands and, as a separate country, will be drifted off at sea in 2012.
      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    13. Re:Original headline was correct... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Seeing that you know so much about the Chernobyl area -- could you help me find this guy named Strelok? He should be around there somewhere. It appears that I have to kill him for some reason, but I can't really remember why...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    14. Re:Original headline was correct... by wild_quinine · · Score: 2, Funny

      Scotland and Wales are part of England??? Not only that's totally false, but I'd like to see your face minutes after you said that in loud voice at a pub in Edinburgh.
      Shouldn't be a problem, you could probably get it shipped in a small box. Better yet, get him to say it in Glasgow and have it stapled to the back of a postcard.
    15. Re:Original headline was correct... by Kwami · · Score: 1

      To be fair, both countries are under British rule and abide by the English Parliament's decisions. It's true that each country has its own "Parliament" of sorts, but it's a very recent thing and they're still sort of "sub-Parliaments."

      Anyway, those awesome guys in Edinburgh had no problem with my English pounds. Try using a Sottish pound in London, though, and people get all kinds of mad! Even the post office didn't want to change it for me!

    16. Re:Original headline was correct... by Floritard · · Score: 1
      Is the "Off-Topic" moderation broken today? Pretty soon we'll be singing football anthems here. Oh hell, here's a few I googled:

      Inger-land, Inger-land, Inger-land
      Inger-land, Inger-land, Inger-land
      Inger-land, Inger-land, Inger-land
      Inger-land
      INGER LAND

      Da-da, da-da da Da-da, da-da da Da-da, da-da da-da da-darrr ENGLAND

      Give me St George in my heart, keep me English
      Give me St George in my heart, I say
      Give me St George in my heart, keep me English Keep me English to my dying day
      No surrender No surrender No surrender to the IRA (scum)

      If it wasn't for the English you'd be Krauts
      If it wasn't for the English you'd be Krauts
      If it wasn't for the English
      Wasn't for the English
      If it wasn't for the English you'd be Krauts
    17. Re:Original headline was correct... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes these days Chernobyl is in Ukraine, which is not in Russia, but in 1986 when the melt down occurred, it was in Russia and back then it was Soviet Russia, the the GP was correct:

      I'm going to say this in a way that even a geographically challenged American can understand. Ignorance is sad. You need to work on this. This is how things were in 1986.

      USSR = country
      USA = country

      Russia != country
      Tennessee != country

      Russia = state
      Tennessee = state
      Ukraine = state

      Russia = state within a country, that is, it's a state within the USSR.
      Tennessee = state within a country, that is, it's a state within the USA
      Ukraine = state within a country, that is, it's a state within the USSR.

      Nashville = city within a state, Tennessee
      Chernobyl = city within a state, Ukraine

      Chernobyl was not a city within Russia, when Russia was part of the USSR. You might as well insist that
      Nashville is a city in Florida because Florida is part of the USA, therefore Florida is the USA.

      Saying that you know how things are when you don't know anything at all makes you look like a moron.

      Moron = you

      Do you understand now?

    18. Re:Original headline was correct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to say this in a way that even a geographically challenged American can understand.

      Obviously the GP was wrong, but you don't have to be an asshole about it. (Oh wait, this is Slashdot, assholery is the normal thing. Never mind.)

    19. Re:Original headline was correct... by phaggood · · Score: 1

      I can also confirm that Amsterdam is slated to be cut off from the Netherlands and, as a separate country, will be drifted off at sea in 201

      And, after reaching the open seas and non-territorial waters, they will make all vices (prostitution, drugs, etc) *completely* legal and the floating city's tourism trade will soon transform it into the largest economy on the planet.

    20. Re:Original headline was correct... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't for the English you'd be Krauts

      Thats sort of funny. While I thought the Welsh and the Scottish were English, I didn't think any one considered the United states citizens, English. Well, maybe the anti-immigration folks.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    21. Re:Original headline was correct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we would be stopping invading Kraut/English twats.

    22. Re:Original headline was correct... by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      Ukraine was never in Russia. Ukraine was a state of the USSR, which Russia controlled until it fell apart, but that doesn't mean it was part of Russia. Ukraine wasn't part of Russia any more than New York is part of California.

    23. Re:Original headline was correct... by Jehosephat2k · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, Chernobyl remembers YOU!!!

    24. Re:Original headline was correct... by Robot+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain that was sarcasm... You Englanders should really lighten up. (/sarcasm)

    25. Re:Original headline was correct... by 8-bitDesigner · · Score: 1

      Pfftt... what about us Amish, you insensitive clod?

    26. Re:Original headline was correct... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      I must be an insensitive clod, as I have no idea what you are suggesting. Do the Amish consider US citizens English? or was there an ww2 elite special operations force comprised of the Amish? If the latter, please provide more information as to their operational procedures. My imagination is not sufficient to attempt to understand what an Elite Amish Corps would look like, or how they would function.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    27. Re:Original headline was correct... by 8-bitDesigner · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Amish refer to those who aren't of German decent as "English", regardless to race, creed, or planetary origin. Though, now that I'm thinking about it, an Amish Special Ops force would be pretty awesome.

    28. Re:Original headline was correct... by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      Inevitably Amsterdam will drift to Polish coast for Euro 2012 football championships.

      Now that is what I call being pasionate about football.

    29. Re:Original headline was correct... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Remember that to everyone but locals:

      England == Great Britain == The UK

      Any further distinction is mere nit-picking, like Canada being a part of North America.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    30. Re:Original headline was correct... by jwo7777777 · · Score: 1

      They rise incredibly early in the morning, wear beards and suspenders as part of their uniform, and fight while breaking ground with a horse strapped to a plow. They do, however, refuse to use modern firearms, preferring fisticuffs and the cutlass.

      They are like land pirates, but without the eye patches, skull-and-crossbones, and hard liquor.

  11. Radiation Hormesis by dontthink · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First off, IAAMP (I am a medical physicsist). This is sort of radiation-induced growth stimulus was actually studied extensively in the first half of the 20th century. A great reference for this behavior is a paper published in Human & Experimental Toxicology called "Radiation hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis" by Calbrese and Baldwin, which examines the dozens of studies examining the effects of low dose radiation on plants, fungi, and insects - fascinating stuff. Over 2/3 of the studies in this time period showed increased growth with radiation, while the other 1/3 used relatively high doses (which is known to have net detrimental effects). People were actually interested in putting radioactive isotopes in fertilizer to encourage crop growth, but results weren't great and the A-bomb happened... and we all know where the public's perception of radiation went after that. I've got a PDF of that paper if anyone is interested (the online version requires a subscription, I believe).

    1. Re:Radiation Hormesis by jandrese · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, it's pretty freaky to read some of the ads in the back of comic books and women's magazines from the early 20s where they were touting Radium as some sort of miracle drug for whatever ails you.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Radiation Hormesis by James+McP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Huh, I wonder if that's where the idea for the "giant mutant animal" movies of the 50s came from.

      --
      I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
    3. Re:Radiation Hormesis by dontthink · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yup, I sometimes feel like I missed out by being born after the golden age of radium enemas. On a more serious note, the concept that low doses of radiation can be beneficial has been a pretty hot topic of debate in the radiological science community lately. There was an incident in Taiwan where radioactive Co-60 (is there really any other kind?) was accidentally recycled into scrap steel that was used in over 200 buildings, giving the occupants low doses of radiation. The standardized incidence ratios (the ratio of observed cancers to expected cancers based on the entire population) in these occupants was on the order of ~0.8, or a 20% reduction in cancer incidence. Also look at studies of cancer incidence between regions of high and low background radiation - rates are lower in high background regions. There are all kinds of problems with these epidemiological studies (confounding factors like socioeconomic status and such), but not always. One study compared 100 years of cancer incidence and mortality data of British radiologists - their life expectancies and cancer rates were significantly than other British physicians (also by ~ 20%). If interested, the Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study also has some very interesting results in this vein. Good, controlled research on the topic of low-dose radiation with respect to humans is hard to come by, however, considering the major stigma attached to radiation. Other than worker and background radiation studies, you've pretty much got to wait until an accident happens.

    4. Re:Radiation Hormesis by dontthink · · Score: 1

      I'm not exactly sure of what you're accusing me of, but I actually posted as an AC in the "High-paying jobs in math and science" thread earlier today (my actual first post - This was my first post). SO you caught me there, but I didn't make any of the posts you referenced... I do see some of the similarities you mentioned, though; honest, if paranoid, mistake.

    5. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Lord+Faust · · Score: 1

      You don't list an e-mail address in your profile. How would I go about contacting you for a copy of that paper? IANAMP, but love reading this sort of thing.

    6. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is sort of radiation-induced growth stimulus was actually studied extensively in the first half of the 20th century.

      Of course now we know that the reason fungus survives in relatively high raditaion environments like nuclear reactors is because fungii are ruled by Scorpio and the most influencial planet for Scorpio is Pluto. Pluto of course has dominion over "unseen forces", such as ionizing radiation, and its metal is plutonium - the link is so obvious I don't see how this is newsworthy.

      Let me know when the manufacturers of tinea medication realise that the harmonious 120 degree seperation between Pisces (which rules the foot) and Scorpio (which rules fungus) abandon their business because they cannot overcome what's written in the stars

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    7. Re:Radiation Hormesis by dontthink · · Score: 1

      contacted you via yahoo IM

    8. Re:Radiation Hormesis by TortiusMaximus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ra-dii-aation.

      Yes indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everyone it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everyone can stand a hundred chest x-rays a year. They oughta have 'em too.

    9. Re:Radiation Hormesis by MBCook · · Score: 1

      That's how Godzilla came about. The film was originally more of a warning/etc, but was re-cut with an american in a few scenes and turned into a monster movie. I know there are others like you were talking about (I think the ants in the movie THEM was influenced by radiation).

      Back on an earlier topic, I've seen documentaries about soviet programs to distriube train loads of grain and have it mixed togehter in hopes of getting new seeds with better yeilds. The project would have be interesting. The breakup and the depression of the USSR turned tons of those little stations which contained radioactivity for use on seeds, how to use them and what they cntained}. It's surprising those aren't more common are not at loose

      PS: please excuse the quality of what i"m wiring. I'm trying to do well. I'm dead on my feet and about to collapse into bead when I click "submit"

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    10. Re:Radiation Hormesis by sellthesedownfalls · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is just a recent debate. IAAMP (in training) too, and I was reading an interview with John Cameron (founder of the MP department at UW-Madison) from a LONG time ago and he's always been an advocate of the fact that low levels of radiation are beneficial.

      Too bad my personal TLD always comes back with no measurable dose. :(

    11. Re:Radiation Hormesis by thephotoman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know whether to moderate this +1 insightful or +1 funny, because while astrology is hardly a topic of truly serious study, you did at least get the right associations for everything. Though, while I can see the conjunction of genitals (Scorpio) and fungi (also Scorpio) playing out as a problem (jock itch, yeast infections), and there are some serious problems with foot-based fungal infections (infected toenails, athlete's foot) that align with the Pisces (foot) and Scorpio trine, what about the breasts/chest (Cancer)? I've never really heard much of fungal infections being a serious problem there.

      On a not-really-related note, tinea spp. are very annoying, and I don't care if they keep coming back, I want to kill them. Bring on the anti-fungals!

      --
      Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
    12. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the EPA -- still stubbornly clinging to the linear hypothesis -- is making small towns in Wisconsin spend millions of dollars on radium abatement.

      It's criminal.

    13. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 2, Funny

      ....what about the breasts/chest (Cancer)?

      Answer 1:
      Mamalian glands (I love that word - glands) start around the armpit.

      Answer 2:
      Cancer is ruled by the moon. To moon is to flash ones bottom. Bottoms are rich environments for bacteria and fungi.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    14. Re:Radiation Hormesis by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

      I guess good news for people living in Easter Europe that got a nice dose of strontium-90 for entire life. And I guess then moving and living on clay soils with all the extra uranium may help too. :)

      But this is very interesting observation. Do they have any idea why cancer rates are down in higher radiation?

    15. Re:Radiation Hormesis by dontthink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yep, Cameron was extremely gung-ho about radiation hormesis... and it really isn't a new debate - it has been ongoing for the past century. The linear no-threshold model of radiation dose-response (endorsed by most regulatory agencies) was essentially developed as a tool for risk assessment derived from an extrapolation of A-bomb survivors with basically no data to support it at low doses. It really only became prominent due to its conservative nature, the public's perception of radiation, and simplicity. Interestingly, Cameron often described low levels of radiation as "essential trace energy," similar to how small amounts of otherwise toxic elements (essential trace elements) can be beneficial. Unfortunately, my TLD is usually negligible too...

    16. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to slashdot, ignore homeless here. He is a tad dilluded and has been pointed out to be a troll many times now.

    17. Re:Radiation Hormesis by dontthink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They do have ideas why low-dose radiation can be beneficial. One possible mechanism is damage prevention. After irradiation, there is an increase in levels of proteins and enzymes that scavenge reactive oxygen species (ROS) (As a point of reference, the natural level of ROS in the body is about 3 orders of magnitude greater than that caused by background radiation). This response subsequently increases the rate that natural ROS are removed, resulting in a net decrease in damaged DNA in the system. Damage repair also likely plays a role; in vitro studies of human fibroblasts have shown that the cellular repair rate is increased by doses in the range of 1 - 500 mGy. Low doses of radiation may also induce apoptosis in cells that have undergone an oncogenic transformation. Low doses may also initiate increased immune competence, which could be beneficial in terms of many other diseases. More detail can be found here: Feinendegen, LE; "Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects and radiation hormesis," The British Journal of Radiology, 2005, Vol 78, p 3-7. The bulk of this paragraph was blatently copy-pasted from a term-paper of mine...

    18. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Omkar · · Score: 1

      This is interesting - I remember reading somewhere (probably Wikipedia) that some poisons actually decrease mortality rates in very low doses, the idea being that your body works to get rid of them and this has some benefits. Alcohol, as far as I understand, was a good example. (I vaguely recall something about a U or J shaped curve, but quick googling doesn't get me much). Assuming this is actually true, would the radiation effect fall into the same category?

    19. Re:Radiation Hormesis by zullnero · · Score: 1

      It's a shame the moderators didn't get this reference. Repo Man, people.

    20. Re:Radiation Hormesis by caluml · · Score: 1

      First off, IAAMP (I am a medical physicsist).

      Even though you can't spell it?

    21. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Thats interesting. Not being even a layman in the field, my first uneducated guess would have been that the cancer cells are more sensitive to the radiation. Isn't that how traditional radiation treatment works? The radiation kills the cancer faster than the healthy cells? Of course what do I know, my knowledge of the low dose radiation issue falls into the 'Yeah, I've heard that before' category.

    22. Re:Radiation Hormesis by JDevers · · Score: 1

      Well, it isn't that cancer is inherently less tolerant to radiation, but it is closely related. Basically, cancer is usually more rapidly replicating than the tissue around it so radiative damage to DNA will hurt them faster than surround tissue. This is why radiation is generally a second round treatment following surgery and maybe following chemotherapy depending on the cancer of courses. If you can get most of it my surgery then you don't have to dose the radiation (or chemo) as high...

    23. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Himring · · Score: 1

      Didn't the japanese know this with the first godzilla movie?

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    24. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Ganesh999 · · Score: 1

      > Good, controlled research on the topic of low-dose radiation with respect to humans is hard to come by,
      > however, considering the major stigma attached to radiation. Other than worker and background radiation
      > studies, you've pretty much got to wait until an accident happens.

      Good set of posts, shame you finished this on with such a line of crap. :)

      1/ Cornwall, UK: higher-than-average radiation in the granite geology there. Medical records should go back quite a way: compare them with the rest of the UK. There will be a number of other geographical locations, say anywhere in the world that there's a uranium mine. (Somewhere in the former USSR there's even a subterranean town where nuclear waste used to be processed...saw a Channel 4 documentary on it a few years ago, which ended with some bloke drinking a glass of water from the pond where they "cool" the waste...)

      2/ We don't need any *more* accidents; thanks to long isotope half-lives we can draw on the mistakes of the past. In particular: parachute into the centre of Chernobyl, start walking 'til you get to active population. The advantage of this approach is that you should be able to create nice graphs of exposure intenisty vs beneficial/deleterious effects.

      Nice, big statistical samples. The one difference with these approaches is that the water table tends to be contaminated, too; in your radioactive steel buildings people won't be actually *ingesting* higher radioactivity in the same way.

      But otherwise the data's there; it's just a question of grabbing it. And I can't believe that no-one's done this already.

      Cheers,

      Conrad

    25. Re:Radiation Hormesis by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      On a more serious note, the concept that low doses of radiation can be beneficial has been a pretty hot topic of debate in the radiological science community lately. Does this apply to all forms of radiation, or only ionizing radiation. Also is it specific to a certain form of ionizing radiation? If it applies to non-ionizing radiation as well could be a nice counter point to the "OMGWTFBBQ WiFi Radiation in teh Schools!!11!One!!" FUD piece that was posted the other day.
      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    26. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, another crack-pot conspiracy theory with no evidence posted by HomelessInLaJolla.

      Go away, troll.

      Unless, of course, you want us to keep modding you down.

      Troll whines about being down-modded, gets down-modded. THE SYSTEM WORKS!

    27. Re:Radiation Hormesis by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not sure how accurate alcohol testing is since it's typically mixed with other chemicals that can be beneficial or harmful. For instance, the benefits of the antioxidants in Red Wine outweigh the possible detriments of the alcohol when taken in moderation (on the order of half a glass a day IIRC).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    28. Re:Radiation Hormesis by dontthink · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply - I guess my point was that when dealing with the retrospective population types of studies you mentioned, dealing with confounding factors (socioeconomic status, healthy worker effect) is a pain in the ass, and really hurt the statistical reliability of your results. That said, regulatory agencies tend to go overboard in dismissing these studies based on the confounding factors.

      When I said good, controlled study, I meant something like this: John Cameron wanted to do a double-blind study with a large sample of senior citizen volunteers in gulf states (where background radiation is low), giving half of them low doses of radiation (ie conceptually, like putting radioactive or normal rocks under their beds) and comparing cancer incidence, longevity, etc. This would cut out confounding factors (though it would only look at old people... due to the latency period of radiation induced carcinogenesis, young people are more susceptible to this... but the data would be definitive for old people at least). This is not going to happen in the near future w/ all the FUD surrounding radiation.

      We could certainly do a lot more with the data we've got though - I completely agree.

    29. Re:Radiation Hormesis by dontthink · · Score: 1

      Little redundant - I made fun of my typo hours before you did

    30. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greetings and salutations, welcome to /.

      Its usually best to ignore HomelessInLaJolla - the capacity for logic left him long ago, probably the reason why he's homeless in the first place. He's a paranoid conspiracy theorist who thinks there *is* a cabal out to get him. He cannot see that the real reason for him being modded down all the time is because he rarely posts anything that isn't either a) paranoid, b) whining, or c) idiotic. He's also a drug addict, which you probably could tell from his sig.

      Stick around, you'll learn to spot the trolls fairly quickly.

    31. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you've never seen the Penn & Teller B$ episode dealing with actually how clean your butt probably is. According to their study, the bottom was the cleanest portion of all of the participants.

      You really should watch more TV for it is infallible ;)

    32. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again, Homeless demonstrates his inability to understand the basic concept of providing EVIDENCE for a claim. Probably a result of his catholic faith - which would also explain how he thinks he's better than everyone else, all evidence to the contrary.

    33. Re:Radiation Hormesis by caluml · · Score: 1

      Aaah, I don't browse down in the depths of Slashdot, so it was new to me :)

    34. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 1

      JDevers's response is nicely written.
      Ionizing radiation is particularly nasty to cells that reproduce quickly. This is why radiation therapy causes patients to lose their hair.

      However, the fact that radiation is slightly more damaging to cancer cells than healthy cells is not the source of hormesis. It is a similar process to vaccination. Being exposed to the consequences of DNA mutation, the body takes extra precautions to combat this and thus becomes resistant to them. So the body builds up an immune defense against cancer from all causes.(ie, not just from the radiation, from chemicals too)

      A medical physicist told me they were considering radiation therapy where they first expose the whole body to a low dose while shielding the tumor. Then a week or so later, apply the lethal dose to the tumor. The initial exposure to the rest of the body is like a warning. Get Ready! There's more coming soon!

      Anywho. I believe the matter or hormesis is still a hotly debated topic, so there may be doctors which disagree with what I've said.

    35. Re:Radiation Hormesis by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      +5 on your first post ever. Well done, and welcome to slashdot!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    36. Re:Radiation Hormesis by arete · · Score: 1

      I'll bite, send me the study please : )

      --
      Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
    37. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Lord+Faust · · Score: 1

      Crap! My Yahoo died months ago. I'll try and reactivate it.

    38. Re:Radiation Hormesis by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      Mamalian glands (I love that word - glands) start around the armpit.

      No they don't. Mammary glands, OTOH...

    39. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Ganesh999 · · Score: 1

      > I guess my point was that when dealing with the retrospective population types of studies
      > you mentioned, dealing with confounding factors (socioeconomic status, healthy worker
      > effect) is a pain in the ass, and really hurt the statistical reliability of your results.
      > That said, regulatory agencies tend to go overboard in dismissing these studies based on the
      > confounding factors.

      *Nod* If you're overzealous there comes a point where confounding factors can bring you to a complete standstill.

      In many fields where the data is there for the taking, e.g. medicine, the trend almost seems to be "discard by default". In a safety-critical industry where you have to pay for testing (guess where I work), the default is to *never* discard data unless you can *prove* it isn't representative of the population.

      I'm strictly agnostic on the question of distribution type, but the advantage of a gaussian (normal) distribution is that it should be able to tolerate a number of confounding factors as the sample size becomes very large. The confusion should all "average out" in the end, as long as care is taken to ensure that there is no systemic bias. The weibull family of distributions contain a close approximation to the normal.

      Bias can be avoided by increasing the size of the data sample, using batches of data from a variety of other sources (e.g. areas of high, low, and average socioeconomic status). Also, a useful tool is the probability plot, i.e. a plot of CDF vs variate: this can help to identify possible groups of outliers that can be discarded after investigation into the cause of skewness.

      If I was giving advice on the radiation study issue, I'd recommend simply expanding the scope. There's a whole planet out there full of inhabited areas of unusually high ambient radioactivity (no need to go around asking people to voluntarily ingest substances that could be harmful to their health)! Even if budget & other factors restrict a study to a localised area (e.g. a depressed uranium mining town) it should still be possible to compare the results with a huge sample of depressed towns (centred around either just mining/quarrying, or possibly a variety of industries), and to draw viable conclusions.

      (BTW, while Cornwall is for the most part strictly rural, the attractive thing about it - if the local ambient radiation is sufficiently high to be of interest - is that the strong tourist industry pumps enough money into the county to give it a fair socioeconomic cross-section).

  12. IAAMP that cannot spell by dontthink · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Second off, I apparently cannot spell "physicist" or the primary author's name, Calabrese. Guess I got caught up in the excitement of my first post ever :)

    1. Re:IAAMP that cannot spell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then spell WINAMP, it spells good.

    2. Re:IAAMP that cannot spell by utnapistim · · Score: 1

      Second off, I apparently cannot spell "physicist" or the primary author's name, Calabrese. Guess I got caught up in the excitement of my first post ever :)

      Yeah ... it shows! You should have started your post with First p0st!

      --
      Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
    3. Re:IAAMP that cannot spell by DohnJoe · · Score: 1

      Guess I got caught up in the excitement of my first post ever. you also misspelled 'frosty piss'
  13. I thought this was news by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    I thought this would be something interesting like fungus that ate and destroyed radiation. It would be great for getting rid of nuclear waste. I don't think such a thing could actually exist, but I'm not a nuclear physicist, or a biologist, so what do I know.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:I thought this was news by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was thinking- All right! Ghost in the Shell! (You know, the Japanese Miracle, the swarm of micromachines capable of removing radiation from the environment.)

    2. Re:I thought this was news by 4e617474 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I doubt it's possible to get living organisms to shorten the half-life of radioactive materials, but fungi that abosrb radioactive materials can be very useful. When radioactive waste contaminates the ground, fungi can extract and concentrate it. The mushrooms can then be harvested for disposal as radioactive waste, leaving the soil in the area less radioactive. Paul Stamets describes it in Mycelium Running (there're good facts in between the hippie/druggie/mystical stuff) describing this and other similar applications of fungi as "mycoremediation".

      --
      Finally modding someone offtopic when they rant about what "Begging the Question" means: priceless.
    3. Re:I thought this was news by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Humans are the only living things that we know of that have been able to split atoms. Life as we know it is built on top of atoms; life breaks down and builds up molecules, but it doesn't break or combine atoms. (It's a safe bet that nuclear reactors are irreducibly complex.)

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    4. Re:I thought this was news by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines of "and when they have accumulated enough radiation it's HULK SMASH! time", but I agree that GITS is more interesting than super-strong fungus.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    5. Re:I thought this was news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear reactors existed before humans built them. In Uranium deposits where water would leak into them, a small, moderated reaction would occur.

  14. In Soviet Russia, by instagib · · Score: 1

    fungi eat you!

    Or your spaceship ...

  15. Metroid Prime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't I seen this with phazon before?

  16. possible upside? by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    so if i don't shower, that means i will be saved from this horrible cell phone and wifi radiation i keep hearing about?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:possible upside? by instagib · · Score: 1

      Sure. Humid walls covered with fungi - the best WiFi firewall there is! A fungiwall, in fact.

    2. Re:possible upside? by djdavetrouble · · Score: 4, Funny

      You have escaped from kuro5hin ????!?!
      Quick, alert the authorities, like that guy who owns the internet !

      --
      music lover since 1969
    3. Re:possible upside? by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      so if i don't shower, that means i will be saved from this horrible cell phone and wifi radiation i keep hearing about?
      Yup. People will stop calling you.
    4. Re:possible upside? by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      More importantly - if everybody else has to do this also, would that make otaku more acceptable to general society?

    5. Re:possible upside? by MightyMait · · Score: 1

      Do I even want to know what "otaku" is?

      --
      Nothing interesting to say...MUST...NOT...REPLY...ohtheheckwithit.
  17. Not really exciting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sorry this is different than the radiation eating fungi/plants absorbing UV re photosynthesis effect? I realize this is changing the structure of the melanin, but isn't that pretty much the same thing that happens in photosynthesis? Light interacts with a chemical changes its properties, energy is stored and made useful to the cell. Looks like in this case it is changing the electrical properties of the system for the organism which aids its growth not direct energy.

    Lets say something goes from opaque to transparent under prolonged radiation exposure, now fungi can get more light than before, and grow better, or at least thrive had a different depth in the water table, not really surprising. Really all they did was show that melanin's properties change with radiation in the favor of the organism.

    1. Re:Not really exciting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exciting? No...not unless you're a bio nerd (or like mis-construed phrases like "Radiation-eating Fungi).

      But it is different because it's metabolic, not photosynthetic. Photosynthesis builds higher energy bonds with energy from the sun. Metabolism breaks down these bonds for the energy. In this case, the radiation catalyzes it. If I read it right, it's not a change in the opacity. Rather, the melanin absorbs the radiation and kicks off an electron, which is absorbed by a metabolic catalyst, causing that secondary molecule to be more active. Of course, the wavelength is different from plants, too.

      So two key differences to remember:
      1.) This process is not photosynthetic
      2.) Photosynthesis typically involves wavelengths that are normally non-ionizing (visible light).

  18. Link to Mir fungi by Joaz+Banbeck · · Score: 5, Informative

    The link for mir-eating fungi goes to an old slashdot story which itself points to a dead link. A usable link to the original story is here: http://www.space.com/news/spacestation/space_fungu s_000727.html

    1. Re:Link to Mir fungi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well doesn't that put the Fun in Fungi....

      (obviously not if you happen to be a kosmonaut)

  19. understandable by r00t · · Score: 1

    Run-away growth can lead to starvation, so the fungus might normally hold back a bit. If weird damage is occuring though, the situation changes. Doing nothing leads to quick death; reproducing fills the voids left by those who've died.

  20. If you live near places like Chernobyl... by damista · · Score: 1

    ...I can imagine it to be a "fun guy" to be with...

  21. Re:Chemistry anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your either a troll, or an idiot.

  22. I'm confused ... if I eat these ... by SpeedyDX · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will I turn into Fungus-man? Or will I suddenly grow twice my size? Or will I get an extra life?

    1. Re:I'm confused ... if I eat these ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no... the radiation-eating fungi will grow into Teenage Mutant Ninja Fungi and adventure will begin... in your colon...

    2. Re:I'm confused ... if I eat these ... by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Or will I get an extra life? Actually these are the black mushrooms introduced recently. If you eat one of these you die. Also, be careful, these will follow you around as well, although if you can harvest one they're really handy at taking out koopas.
      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  23. Flawed paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article:

    "Irradiated melanin manifested a 4-fold increase in its capacity to reduce NADH relative to non-irradiated melanin."

    Sorry! NADH is the reduced form, NAD+ is the oxidized form. NAD+ can be reduced to NADH. NADH can't be further reduced by organisms.

    I'll leave it to others to find the additional flaws.

    1. Re:Flawed paper by brxndxn · · Score: 1

      NAD-eating fungi? That sounds scary as hell.

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
  24. Re:Chemistry anyone? by Secshunayt · · Score: 3, Informative

    Radioactive isotopes can emit alpha particles, which are helium nuclei, beta particles, which are an electron emitted from the nucleus when a neutron changes into a proton and an electron, or gamma particles (more accurately rays) which have no mass or charge and are a form of electromagnetic radiation. The closest thing to what you are suggesting would be an ionized hydrogen atom, which is simply a proton. This, however, is not a form of radiation; it's just, well, hydrogen.

  25. to go with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  26. Not surprised. by M3SS3NG3R · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying this sort of research shouldn't be done. However, the mere fact that radiation is capable of stimulating growth for some organisms isn't too impressive. Look at any plants that contain chlorophyll. That's "radiation stimulated growth" right there. Yes, sunlight is a form of radiation, too.

    1. Re:Not surprised. by quinspr70c0l · · Score: 1

      Your mixing up radioactive radiation (stuff that comes the nucleus) with electromagnetic radiation (photons).

    2. Re:Not surprised. by M3SS3NG3R · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that gamma rays are not considered radioative radiation even though it is often produced from nuclear reactions such as that from an atomic bomb? Besides, from TFA: "The role of melanin in microorganisms living in high electromagnetic radiation fluxes is even more intriguing when the pigment is considered from a paleobiological perspective." So it would seem that the particular radiation they used in the research is an EM radiation as well.

  27. Well... by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one welcome our new mutant fungi overlords.

    --
    Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
  28. Re:Chemistry anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the icing on the cake is someone modded him insightful.

  29. How's this news ? *yawn* by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    When I was working as an intern at a nuclear power plant ten years ago, they were in the process of dismantling a decommissioned reactor block. One of the unexpected issues that popped up was having massive algae growth in the old reactors pressure vessel (highly radioactive due to having been activated over the course of a few decades of use).

  30. This still doesn't get rid of the radiation. by msblack · · Score: 1

    So what do you do with the fungi after they "eat" the radiation? You get a bunch of radioactive fungi. It's not as though the fungi break down beta particles.

    --
    signature pending slashdot approval
    1. Re:This still doesn't get rid of the radiation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, beta particles are just electrons flying around; you don't have to "break down" beta particles, you just need to slow them down.
      Alpha particles is basically just ionized helium; slow it down and add 2 electrons and you have regular helium
      gamma is the only real radiation that escapes, as it consists of photons which CAN be absorbed.

    2. Re:This still doesn't get rid of the radiation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably makes it more dangerous if the fungi spores gets air-born to spread it radioactive seeds around.

    3. Re:This still doesn't get rid of the radiation. by t_little · · Score: 1

      Beta particles are just fast-moving electrons. So no, they won't break down. However, once slowed down they aren't any more dangerous than any other electrons. Likewise alpha particles are just fast-moving helium. Gamma rays disappear completely once absorbed, since they're just photons. They may do some damage on the way through, but once stopped aren't dangerous anymore.

      Neutrons are a different story. They often end up absorbed by a stable nucleus, changing its atomic mass and possibly causing it to become an unstable isotope. Hence matter that absorbs neutrons can become dangerous in its own right.

      --

      -- Tim Little

  31. It makes it easier to get rid ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    ... of the radioactive material.

    You get a bunch of radioactive fungi.

    Yes. And that's much better than having a really big heap of radioactive soil, because the fungi have a smaller volume and are therefore much easier to dispose of.

  32. Still the wrong subject by Askmum · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is not "radiation eating", this is "radiation enabling".
    Eating radiation implies that the radiation is removed or converted. There is no mention of that.
    That's the same like saying "solar rays eating fungi discovered".

  33. wait by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    this comment gets a Score:3, Interesting?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    oh man, maybe i am notorious

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  34. But... how does it interact with Tiberium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm trying some new CNC3 strategies...

  35. Spilled drink on the screen by DrYak · · Score: 1

    "Look! Pikachu is being intelligently designed!"


    Thank you, you just made my day !

    (And, as a side note, I'm sure such groups do indeed exist somewhere in the bible belt... see SIG)
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  36. IAAMP is... by DrYak · · Score: 2, Informative

    I would really like to know what a medical physicist is.


    As the name could show you, it's a physicist (someone with a PhD in physics) working in the medical fields (his colleagues are MD, just like me).

    There's a field of medicine where we needs the a lot, for exemple : the nuclear medicine.

    High radiations are something that kills, as the MP said before. Therefor they can be focalised and targeted to kill cancer cells (Yes. Friking "nucular death rays" ! ... Although we haven't found a way to mount them on sharks). In this case, it's the Doctor's job to find the tumor tissus on the Scan and/or MRIs, decide the therapy (how much do we irradiate ?) and tell the machine how much to send on which part (although not all the step may be done by the same person. and the actually button-pressing will be done by a technician).
    It's the physicist's job to design the model that the software use to predict how to irradiate the targeted tumor without irradiating too much neighboring healthy organs. It's also he's who is in charge of the callibration of the machine etc.

    Other example : low-level radiation are mostly harmless. but they can be detected. Thus there's a whole class of examinations that can be done by ingesting/inhalating/injecting some radioactive material, and then make pictures/filming the radioactive emission to 'see' where the radioactive product went (for exemple using a radioactive gaz, to see how gaz circulated inside the lung. That's part of an examination called "pulmonary scintigraphy"). The doctor is mostly only taking care to read and interpret the produced pictures. Almost everything else (production of radioactive material, machine callibration, etc.) is supervised by physicists (and the actual manual job done by technicians).

    etc.
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:IAAMP is... by inca34 · · Score: 1

      Zing!

  37. Not that safe. by ambrosen · · Score: 1

    I can't find the citations easily, but I have seen that there are suggestions that chemical processes may be able to moderate nuclear reactions.

  38. Bad Poetry! by jorgeuva · · Score: 1

    Oh noetry!

  39. Better stay clear of this stuff... by MS-06FZ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Before you know it there'll be a big forest of this stuff emitting deadly lung-rotting spores, and the forest will be home to a legion of giant, deadly, and extremely vindictive insects...

    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
    1. Re:Better stay clear of this stuff... by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

      You win, with the Nausica reference.

      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  40. The risks of sarcastic geography by mcvos · · Score: 1

    Baah. It is all Russia, the same way Scotland and Wales is part of England, and Rotterdam part of Holland.

    That last one is actually true.

  41. Radioative Mushrooms by Dontgimmiethatlook · · Score: 1

    Some fungi have been found whose growth is enhanced by radiation.

    So that explains why Mario grows taller whenever he eats a mushroom. Contaminated food never ceases to amaze me.
  42. Re:Ra... dii-ation... by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

    Something to do with having to take the mains off the line, I believe?

    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  43. Also known is that melanin absorbs radiation by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

    Melanin is the class of pigments that makes skin dark. It's long been known that it blocks UV radiation, hence the lower incidence of skin cancer in darker-skinned populations.

    The interesting thing here is that fungal cells with melanin in them apparently show increased enzyme activity when exposed to ionizing radiation. If I read the paper right, the melanin absorbs the radiation, giving it energy to transfer an electron to NADH, a biological catalyst important in metabolism, which in turn boosts the metabolic rate so the fungus can grow faster.

    Incidentally, the fungus is not actually feeding on radioactive particles, but being exposed to the radiation helps it grow faster. The introduction to the paper states that fungi can withstand far higher radiation exposure than they get in places like Chernobyl or the upper atmosphere. The implication is that those fungi that have melanin developed the ability to grow it, not because they need the protection, but because it helps them metabolize.

    In this way the melanin seems to serve a surprisingly similar role for metabolism as chlorophyl does for photosynthesis, although perhaps with less reliance on the part of the organism.

    By the way, thanks to the submitter for linking to the paper. It's so much more useful than a typical news article.

    Today's slashdot word of the day: Cladosporium sphaerospermum - an intrinsically melanized fungus found in abundance at the site of nuclear accident in Chernobyl which produces melanin in the variety of growth conditions - from nutrient rich medium to almost complete starvation. (courtesy of the paper).

  44. It will not start over by geekoid · · Score: 1

    that implies some sort of race or contest with a predetermined outcome. NO, it will continue with a new set of parameters.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  45. Metroid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kinda reminds me of Metroid for some reason. :)

  46. Re:Chemistry anyone? by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget about neutrons too. Free neutrons tend to do interesting things when they combine with other atomic nuclei. However, free neutrons are not stable and have a half-life of about 15 minutes, at which time they disintegrate to a proton and an electron (plus some energy) and leave you with, yep, hydrogen.

  47. While that may TECHNICALLY be correct... by raehl · · Score: 1

    ...It wouldn't be +1 Funny.