Slashdot Mirror


Mythbusters to Test Cockroach Radiation Myth

redwoodtree writes "An article on the site for the Tri-City Herald sums it up perfectly: 'Contrary to popular belief, not a significant amount of research goes into cockroach radiation.' To test the old saw about 'the cockroaches being the only survivors of a nuclear war' Discovery Channel's Mythbusters are going out to Hanford Site, where plutonium was manufactured for the first nuclear bomb. It's the single most polluted nuclear waste site in the U.S. The Mythbusters are going to take cockroaches and other insects and apply successively higher doses of radiation in a controlled setting."

573 comments

  1. Sorry... by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one welcome our new irradiated cockroach overlords.

    Really, I apologize, I can't help it... :(

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    1. Re:Sorry... by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      They won't care if we welcome them or not once they grow to the size of Godzilla. They will just devour us all like Cthulhu!

      --
      How ya like dat?
    2. Re:Sorry... by Spaseboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Soviet Chernobyl, cockroaches irradiate YOU!

      --
      "I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
      -Jennifer Saunders as Edina Monsoon
    3. Re:Sorry... by bob.appleyard · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      if you are a girl you probably look like a donkey's asshole, especially if you're home subscribing to Slashdot, loser Whereas, by anonymously hurling sexist abuse at strangers, you are providing a role model for the next generation.

      Can someone please tell me the justification for allowing AC posts?
      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
    4. Re:Sorry... by lgw · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What happens if you nuke Cthulhu?

      He reforms in 15 minutes, and *now* he's radioactive.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Sorry... by opieum · · Score: 1

      Ahh crap get ready. PETA will be on the roll. Altho I am guessing they only work on saving the cute animals. Otherwise they would be going after ranchers for cows and crap like that.

    7. Re:Sorry... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Not to mention people hurling random, sexist abuse at you.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    8. Re:Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...yeah, because people can't just create a throw-away account.

    9. Re:Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god! It's "Them"! II.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047573/

    10. Re:Sorry... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      You're supposed to call the Vermin Americans, and this test is violating their civil rights.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    11. Re:Sorry... by neomunk · · Score: 1

      May your daughters bare you many multi-racial grandchildren.

    12. Re:Sorry... by robertb67212 · · Score: 1

      Me, too. Seriously, there was an article in Scientific American and an interview by the author of this on "Science Friday" who predicted that should humans disappear, rats and cockroached would suffer - they are essentially commensals (or parasites?) of humans. With us gone they would suffer greatly reduced populations.
      There is an article in this month's Scientific American about how cockroaches can live for several weeks without heads, it has two photos of regular cockroaches on the age, I forced myself to read it. PTSD from the apartment I lived in in college.

    13. Re:Sorry... by argiedot · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wonder if there are any people out there who would stop a kid from frying a bug with a magnifying glass and then turn around and watch this episode without any qualms. I bet there are lots.

    14. Re:Sorry... by TheSharpCrayon · · Score: 1

      May your daughters BEAR you many multi-racial children. Sorry spelling counts on your final grade.

    15. Re:Sorry... by neomunk · · Score: 1

      I wrestled with that for 3 whole seconds before I post it.

      Anyways, I don't think spelling is really that important in old-school eastern European type curses, like the one I used.

      Now if I had tried to lay down some ole' cabbalistic(sp?) mojo, then I'd likely have a nasty demon riding my ass for mispronouncing his favorite syllabic intonation or something.

      I'd use The Voodoo, but not too many anonymous cowards will submit to hair and nail-clipping samples.

      Makes me wish some linux hacker would write some libraries to put a universal interface on some of the various mystical traditions. That way we could all make roll-your-own curse-laying binaries.

      Yep, that's what happens when you take a train of thought too far.

    16. Re:Sorry... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wonder if there are any people out there who would stop a kid from frying a bug with a magnifying glass and then turn around and watch this episode without any qualms. I bet there are lots. There are lots of reasons to stop a kid from doing that; most of them have little to do with the bug's welfare.
      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    17. Re:Sorry... by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Let's kind of neglect the point that "may your daughters bear you children" implies that he impregnates his own daughters.... it should be "may your daughters bear you many multiracial GRANDchildren."

      Of course, with the crap spewing out of some AC's mouths, it's possible that the first statement is the proper intended meaning.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    18. Re:Sorry... by RadQuark · · Score: 1

      Well as for the scientific knowledge, it's not actually true that no one has researched this well. In fact research into the cellular mechanisms of radiation damage are a huge research field. Insects esp. cockroaches have all been studied, well perhaps not with the same zeel that we study/kill mice (mice are better human analogues than insects). Any way, a well worded google scholar search reveals some of the research, some of which is accessible without journal subscriptions. Please note that cockroaches are found to be some of the most radiation sensitive insects! Good Brief Summary: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1567313.htm Google Scholar Search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=safari&q=radiation+%22cockroach%22&btnG=Search

  2. Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't forget to test twinkies as well

    1. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      And lawyers. Couldn't we try some lawyers???

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by fm6 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nothing can destroy twinkies. When humanity is long gone, alien archaeologists will marvel at the mummified remains of the dominant life form, all worshipers of the mysterious god Hostess.

    3. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by simcop2387 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They would but there insurance won't allow them to do that, AND the lawyers cost too much per hour.

    4. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Funny
      C'mon, the test I'm wanting to see them perform is the one that claims:

      "In the event of a nuclear holocaust, the only survivors would be cockroaches and Keith Richards ".

      Personally at this point, I don't think anything can kill him....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 0

      What about Homer Simpson? he one can in late to work and then tried to hide in the core was latter forced to eat hundred gallons of toxic waste and was still able to bowl a 300 game later that day.

    6. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who would win in a fight between Keith Richards and Chuck Norris?

    7. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by nuzak · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Personally at this point, I don't think anything can kill him....

      Holy water?

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    8. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but he was also able to survive with a crayon lodged in his brain for like 30 years, and he was also able to fall down a giant gorge, hitting every rock on the way down, and survive (albeit with fairly serious injuries). Clearly, something has given Homer Simpson superhuman powers. I suspect it has something to do with the chemical content of the inks with which he's drawn.

      Obviously, science should be doing more research into this issue.

    9. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Funny

      And lawyers. Couldn't we try some lawyers???

      Are you NUTS? They'll MUTATE! It's bad enough with NORMAL lawyers already!

    10. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      No way, that dude is righteous! :D

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    11. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Eating Twinkies is what protects the roaches from radiation.

    12. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 2, Funny

      I highly doubt lawyers produce enough radiation to harm a cockroach. Now, toxic fumes.....

      --
      Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    13. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They already said they were going to.. !

      ...te in the U.S. The Mythbusters are going to take cockroaches and other insects and...
    14. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      In the words of Robin Williams: "I smoked your uncle, did you know that? Fuckin' crazy..."

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    15. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by gbobeck · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to test twinkies as well


      Lets not forget to test Spam (the "food" product) and Spammers (those bastards).
      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    16. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO... You don't want to end up with Mutant Ninja Lawyers...

    17. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Damocles+the+Elder · · Score: 1

      Mummification? They're just going to find twinkies as edible as the day they were packaged.

    18. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by vimh42 · · Score: 1

      Soooo do the roaches turn into lawyers or is it the other way around?

    19. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the aliens will wonder why those little black objects were so well preserved, and each wrapped in a decorative cloak. The obvious conclusion is that they are the mortal remains of highly venerated beings, probably priests of the "Hostess" cult.

    20. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone did.

      Turns out they wiegh the same as a duck.

    21. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      In the event of a showdown between the two, Keith Richards would challenge Chuck Norris to a drinking contest. The two would still be doing shots when our sun goes supernova, destroying all the alcohol and shot-glasses thus leaving the contest unsettled.

    22. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by pabrown85 · · Score: 1

      NORMAL normal?
    23. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      "This is an outrage! I was going to eat that mummy!"

      Note: you must cut and paste the link. Their site checks referrers.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    24. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Too late already. I was married to an abnormal lawyer.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    25. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Brikus · · Score: 2, Informative

      He snorted his uncle, he didn't smoke him. Smoking his uncle would be way too fucked up, duh

    26. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by courseofhumanevents · · Score: 1

      Note: you must cut and paste the link. Their site checks referrers. Pfft.

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/953
    27. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by hyades1 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, I guess you'd have to follow rigorous scientific protocol and sacrifice the subjects at the end of the experiment. Disposal should be easy enough. Once you clean all the crap out of a lawyer, what's left should fit into a baggie.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    28. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by wik · · Score: 1

      Let's run it through legal.

      --
      / \
      \ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
      x
      / \
    29. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's coz they are made up from wood!

    30. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by The+-e**(i*pi) · · Score: 1

      I believe its his Football helmet like head.

    31. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a "Pet Twinkie" for almost 5 years, it was a special Bannana flavored edition that I displayed on a shelf, it was still spongie soft when it got lost in a move...

    32. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweet. A 28k add-on for functionality most browsers include by default. Firefox is truly revolutionary.

      Now, if only fewer people would install the "Auto-post off-topic 'bragging' about shit every one else already has" plug-in. Nobody cares.

    33. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Fuch no, would you really want to know that the only two life forms left after a nuclear war would be cockroaches and lawyers? That would be too much to bear.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    34. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by psychicsword · · Score: 1

      Chuck Norris anyone?

    35. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Kyojin · · Score: 1

      I don't know, it'd be comforting knowing that we'd all die and not have to put up with lawyers and cockroaches.

      But if some of us would survive along with the lawyers and cockroaches (who makes that distinction anyway?) then surely that is a huge incentive to avoid nuclear war at all costs?

      Unfortunately, if the lawyers find out about this, they may try and start a nuclear war to speed up their process of world domination. I don't know how they'll stop the cockroaches though.

    36. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by rts008 · · Score: 1

      I have an OSHA certified hardhat embedded in my skull, you insensitive clod!

      Hold on, I'm picking up this really cool radio station in my head...Why are my dentures buzzing??? WTF?....Hey, I don't need my TV's remote control anymore!! w00t!!!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    37. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We mustn't forget to test Cher!

      "In the event of a nuclear holocaust, the only two lifeforms that will emerge unscathed are cockroaches and Cher."

      We are assuming in this case that these trials with cockroaches are successful. Otherwise, we must the revise the above statement.

    38. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by mpe · · Score: 1

      Soooo do the roaches turn into lawyers or is it the other way around?

      Will Adam and Jamie be allowed to irradiate lawyers? If so will the footage show up on an "outtakes" episode...

    39. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      He snorted his own uncle, or father, whatever... that's because the guy was already ashes.

      Now, the cockroach's uncle, OTOH...

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    40. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by The+-e**(i*pi) · · Score: 1

      I should bash you in the head, but you wouldn't feel it, you insensitive clod.

    41. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by ClubStew · · Score: 1

      I've had that experiment going for a few years in my office now. Hard as a rock, but haven't lost color. We have the control in its wrapper, another out of the wrapper, and one cut in half (and obviously out of its wrapper).

      Maybe they could appear on Mythbusters in another 10 years or so when plenty of data is collected.

    42. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there insurance won't allow them Sorry - where insurance?
    43. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by symbolic · · Score: 1

      I guess the same would be true for the cockroaches in the Whitehouse. One in particular is real strange. I hear it has gray hair and keeps trying to say something intelligible.

    44. Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We often had to send surgical instrument prototypes over to be gamma sterilized (using cobalt 60) to see how they would work after sterilization. I always wanted to stick a twinky in the box. I suspected it would somehow warp time and space. More likely it would disintegrate the plastic like it did to most stuff.

      Touring the irradiator during maintenance was pretty cool. Snake your way into the giant concrete structure (10 ft walls) and you get to see several million curies of Co 60 glowing not far away under the pool of water.

      On a topical note, the sterization folks could control the amount of gamma radiation your samples would receive. Not dead on accurate since the boxes and everything else acted like optics to diffuse, absorb or refract in complex ways. But pretty close. You could easily set up an experiment to test roaches at progressively higher doses until you kill them. And you WILL be able to kill them.

  3. Safety? by guruevi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how they will handle the nuclear safety of their own and their crew.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Safety? by purpledinoz · · Score: 4, Funny

      And, for the big finale, I wonder if they're going to set off a nuke. Those guys love to blow things up.

    2. Re:Safety? by MichaelKaiserProScri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Gamma irradiator. Basically, big lead tube with a gamma source inside. You can't get it out. You can't expose the source to the outside world. There is a lead "airlock". You put the roach inside. Irradiate. Release. I went to a High School that had a gamma irradiator. We DID this experiment. Exposed roach to greater than 1000, but less than 10000 roentgens. We weren't real precise. But the roach lived long enough for us to decide we better squish it before it reproduced.

      Oh, yes, "stuff doesn't glow when you expose it to radiation". Not 100% true. Some stuff DOES. Namely most crystals. One of the most impressive examples is Sodium Chloride. Yep, table salt. Irradiate it overnight. The gamma rays knock the electrons up to a higher energy level. But since salt has a very tight crystaline structure, they don't snap back down immediatly. Remove from irradiator, and over the course of the next 24 hours, it glows pretty brightly (bright as a glow stick) in a funky red-orange light (spectra of sodium). Eventually all the electrons snap back down to their ground state and it quits glowing. Not radioactive at any point while this is going on. The only thing it emits is red-orange photons which are not "radiation" by most people's standards. (Well it is, but ALL light is...)

    3. Re:Safety? by grogdamighty · · Score: 5, Funny

      You just shouldn't put stuff you find on the ground in your mouth..

      Note: this is generally good advice anywhere.

      --
      My other sig is funny.
    4. Re:Safety? by Chmarr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Exactly. Pumpkins are totally dangerous.

    5. Re:Safety? by modecx · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the cantaloupes. Those things are the evil redheaded bastard stepchild of the melon world!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    6. Re:Safety? by burndive · · Score: 2, Funny

      I totally want to try the salt thing!

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    7. Re:Safety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did anybody said 'generally'?
      I was under the impression it meant something akind to 'not always'

      could be wrong of course, as I am not a native english speaker.

    8. Re:Safety? by eln · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Oh crap, and the President just threatened World War III the other day! Anyone living anywhere near Tehran might want to put on some SPF 1,000,000 sunscreen when this episode is taped.

    9. Re:Safety? by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      But only the EVIL ones

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    10. Re:Safety? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      ...I know this is off topic, but I just pictured hundreds of people all sitting around coated in what can only be described as white clay staring at the sky.

      This picture seems fitting: http://www.asij.ac.jp/elc/clay/DSC03049_small.JPG

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    11. Re:Safety? by trickyrickb · · Score: 0

      Thats no reason to chop them up every fall, you insensitive clod!

    12. Re:Safety? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, let's just hope they'll never test the myth of all Chinese jumping at the same time breaking Earth! :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:Safety? by jbourj · · Score: 1

      Just curious: where/when did you go to high school? These sound like absolutely fantastic experiments that I fear are entirely impossible these days (legally). I know that you and I can go out and buy mild gamma sources (like here) but that doesn't mean it is legal in a public high school (e.g. mercury).

    14. Re:Safety? by MichaelKaiserProScri · · Score: 3, Informative

      Riverview High School, Sarasota, FL. (1986-1989)

    15. Re:Safety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's vague. That is one use for it, but another (and one that shows up more often in mathematics, computer science, and programming, so perhaps more likely to be used or interpreted here) is that it applies without regard to special cases, that you can apply it anywhere and have it be true.

    16. Re:Safety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "steralyzin"

      Your spelling astounds me.

    17. Re:Safety? by SuSEboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      What? You pick pumpkins off of the ground and put them in your mouth?

    18. Re:Safety? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >Hanford is not contaminated to the point that it's dangerous to just be there.

      Maybe it isn't now, but I had friends working for Bechtel, who were doing radiochemical testing of natural ponds to try and figure out which one was going to go critical *first*. I'm not joking or exaggerating: there was so much leaked radioactive material on/in the ground that they expected it to concentrate through natural drainage to above critical mass. One friend told me about several of the criticality incidents they had, where waste plutonium had accumulated in oil-filled coolant ducts and started thermal runaway reactions (that boiled all the oil, displacing all the plutonium chips, which then settled back down to start the cycle again...) So while Hanford might be okay now, I wouldn't go there unless I was with someone who had worked there a long, long time. That's the only place I've ever visited where they gave me a heavy steel tag with a number stamped on it, for rugged identification, along with the film badge.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    19. Re:Safety? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For the record, if you dump enough short-wave radiation into almost anything non-metallic, it'll phosphoresce. (quick terminology: if a molecule absorbs short-wavelength radiation and immediately re-emits longer-wave radiation, that's fluorescence. If it absorbs radiation by kicking electrons up into orbits that are higher-energy but the electron has the same spin as a lower-energy electron in an unoccupied orbital, the activated electron can't simply drop back down, so it hangs out for a while until quantum mechanics effects allow it to drop down into a lower orbital and emit an electron: that's phosphorescence. Things that "glow in the dark" are phosphorescence, the time-delay version of fluorescence.) Anyway. I worked with a megawatt-level deep UV laser that would fire for about a millisecond every second when we were analyzing the beam cross-section, to try and see if any of the optics were dying. If they were, spots in that lens would glow after it fired. If paper was in the beam, it'd glow yellow (and be yellow after a shot. After the second it'd be brown and after the third it'd be gone.) So would cloth. Or skin. Kind of cool, in a painful way.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    20. Re:Safety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, you must have one big mouth.

    21. Re:Safety? by afabbro · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm not joking or exaggerating: there was so much leaked radioactive material on/in the ground that they expected it to concentrate through natural drainage to above critical mass.

      You're not joking...but perhaps you should be. For critical mass, you're talking between 10kg of plutonium (Pu-239) to 80kg (Pu-242). That's a lot of Pu to have "leaked". Not impossible I suppose (in terms of volume, even a Pu-242 core is less than a foot in diameter), but even if there was 10kg of loose Plutonium in the ground around Hanford, getting it all together seems unlikely...it's in millions of gallons of liquid and millions of tons of earth. It's not like Pu atoms are magnetically drawn to each other - they're just heavy.

      True, Hanford produced 55,000kg of plutonium during its operational life, and 10-80kg would be a small fraction. But I'm skeptical...not that Hanford isn't polluted, but that there's a danger of enough loose Pu accumulating through "drainage" to get into a critical mass/configuration.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    22. Re:Safety? by Deadstick · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Oh, yes, "stuff doesn't glow when you expose it to radiation". Not 100% true. Some stuff DOES. Namely most crystals.

      And the cooling water in a reactor...

      rj

    23. Re:Safety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't keep us in suspense...what school DID you go to?

    24. Re:Safety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have worked in the 318 building, and personally seen the gamma irradiator they are using. There are several redundant passive safety features built into the thing. It would be extremely hard to hurt yourself or get significant dose even if you tried.

    25. Re:Safety? by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      They should try to bust the myth that you could build a nuclear weapon without having government clearance.

      hehe.... I bet they would have a hard time convincing their insurance people of that one. I'm sure it would be like "Ok, blowing up a concrete truck, ok... but YOU WANNA DO WHAT?"

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    26. Re:Safety? by osjedi · · Score: 4, Informative

      DrBuzzo is correct. They are using an irradiation facility at Pacific Northwest National Lab. Basically you've got a shielded room containing a shielded radiation source. Place things in the room, seal it up, and then using remote control the radiation source is exposed for the pre-determined exposure time and then re-shielded. When the room is no longer 'hot' you can go in and get your stuff out. The facility they are using is used to calibrate dosimeters and other equipment.

      It's nice to see my home-town being used for such an awesome mythbusters episode. : )

      This is osjedi, reporting live from Tri-Cities, WA. Home of the world's best apples, grapes, hopps, cherrys, and weapons grade plutonium.

      --
      -=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-
    27. Re:Safety? by BlindRobin · · Score: 1

      doesn't seem to hurt the cockroaches..

    28. Re:Safety? by tap · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm pretty sure the myth of enough plutonium accumulating in some kind of duct to reach criticality, which dispersed it, until it accumulated enough to blue flash again, and so on is "confirmed".

      I remember people talking about this back when I worked there, and some of them were actually around when it happened.

    29. Re:Safety? by MichaelKaiserProScri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's a different animal entirely. It's "Cerenkov radiation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerenkov_radiation . The speed of light in a vacuum is the absolute hard maximum speed most particles can travel at. (ok, just below it for anything with mass). But the LOCAL speed of light varies by medium. Speed of light through air is a bit slower. Speed of light through water is a LOT slower. The blue glow comes when a particle is emited near the speed of light through air and hits the water. It momentarily exceeds the speed of light through water (allowed since it is not exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum), but has to slow down. Slowing down ditches energy which must go somwhere, a blue photon in this case.

    30. Re:Safety? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Well, let's just hope they'll never test the myth of all Chinese jumping at the same time breaking Earth!

      Actually they did test the myth that the rhythm of military marching on a bridge could bring it down. I missed the outcome of it, though.

    31. Re:Safety? by LarsG · · Score: 1

      steralyzine

      According to Google, you have just created a new word.

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    32. Re:Safety? by momerath2003 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe you're thinking of the bare sphere plutonium critical masses. With water as a moderator and a reflector, the actual "critical mass" will certainly be less (but, of course, it will be affected by the pond geometry and the contaminants in the pond.

      --
      I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
    33. Re:Safety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd imagine its at least partly because it makes for a more interesting show. A little more like post nuclear war than inside a lab.

    34. Re:Safety? by jbrower · · Score: 1

      What about the five-second rule?

    35. Re:Safety? by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it's possible. There were several criticality accidents in oil reservoirs and air filters:

      For example, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1961USSR2.html and several other ones (I'm too lazy to search)
      http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radcrit.html

    36. Re:Safety? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's not that unusual there is evidence that natural nuclear reactions have taken place like the Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors. If you read about criticality accidents, they can occure in labs when fissile reactant are poured into "geometricaly unsafe containers" so while I don't know how much they are talking about, it's obvious the amounts are less than 10's of kg.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    37. Re:Safety? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, same here. Class of 2000, I had Mr Mocherman (senor). I don't think he was there when you were, especially since he wouldn't let me put anything that was alive in the source.

    38. Re:Safety? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Alpha emetters are pretty safe as long as they are not ingested, alpha particles can't penetrate the dead skin layer. The problem with injestion is that the particles can't get out so you absorb all the energy, unlike other particle that mostly go through you.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    39. Re:Safety? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Exposed roach to greater than 1000, but less than 10000 roentgens.

      How much is that in megatons?

      --
      What?
    40. Re:Safety? by TeknoHog · · Score: 2, Informative

      The blue glow comes when a particle is emited near the speed of light through air and hits the water. It momentarily exceeds the speed of light through water (allowed since it is not exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum), but has to slow down. Slowing down ditches energy which must go somwhere, a blue photon in this case.

      AFAIK, the particles don't have to slow down. As you said it's not exceeding c and there's no physical law forcing it to be slowed down to the local speed of light. Cerenkov radiation is the optical/electromagnetic equivalent of a sonic boom, which is created by a plane traveling faster than the local speed of sound.

      Of course, the energy in the light has to come from somewhere and the particle is slowed down eventually. However, there are many ways in which particles radiate by slowing down (e.g. synchrotron radiation from electrons in a circular particle accelerator) and the Cerenkov mechanism is a pretty special case compared to the others.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    41. Re:Safety? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Or they could try to help out Kari and the boys capturing some roaches and putting them in containers 10m, 50m, 100m, and so on upto 3000m from the center of likely target sites.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    42. Re:Safety? by Walruzoar · · Score: 1

      Must remember not to put table salt on my chips...
      Hmmm chips....

      --
      Take off every 'Sig'!! You know what you doing. http://www.donline.co.uk/
    43. Re:Safety? by Akzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well done fellow moderators. A warning about evil pumpkins is of course not funny, but informative.

      --
      Sig is for Signature, so you don't have to manually sign every post.
    44. Re:Safety? by MichaelKaiserProScri · · Score: 2, Informative

      I had Mr. Mocherman. We didn't exactly ASK before putting the roach in. But it was his big ole boot that squished the roach. I think the experiment became verboten after we did it because I think he fully expected the roach to die and was shocked that it didn't.

      His exact words were "Can't let that one breed. {squish}"

    45. Re:Safety? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Of course it's Cerenkov radiation. And it's a counterexample to "stuff doesn't glow when you expose it to radiation"...QED.

      rj

    46. Re:Safety? by abb3w · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exposed roach to greater than 1000, but less than 10000 roentgens.

      How much is that in megatons?

      Different types of unit. From my vaguely recalled nuke classes from a decade ago, a 1 megaton nuclear blast with clear line-of-sight gives a human the smaller dose at on the order of 30 miles from ground zero, the higher dose at on the order of 10 miles. A 1000 roentgen whole-body dose is sometimes survivable with extensive medical treatment, but requires a compatible bone marrow transplant within under a week. The higher dose is uncurable, as it eventually kills the central nervous system, although the cause of death is usually from the failure of the digestive track (which might theoretically be "curable", if it didn't require a complete transplant from a compatible donor and weren't ultimately futile anyway). The best treatment at that point is probably three shots of morphine at one hour intervals, in 50, 100, and 200mg doses.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    47. Re:Safety? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Of course you can. If you do, the gub will probably take it by force, laws or no.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    48. Re:Safety? by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      So the shielding allows for remote control signals, but doesn't allow radiation to pass through...?

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    49. Re:Safety? by Suicyco · · Score: 1

      Probably the same way everybody else who deals with radiation does. Its not that hard. We have been safely working with radiation for decades now.

    50. Re:Safety? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Copper wiring in an extremely heavy shielding.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    51. Re:Safety? by sjames · · Score: 1

      10Kg is the critical mass with neither moderation or a neutron reflector for a sphere of Pu at it's natural density.

      If it's collecting in runoff, it will have a moderator.

    52. Re:Safety? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      contrary to common misperception a hazmat suit is primarially to protect the weared from Radioactive dust. not from the irradiated materials. radiaoctive dust can stay in the lungs potentially for decades, causing lung cancers, some ultra fine dusts can work into the blood stream and cause other forms of cancers, but most irradiated sites put out less radiation than a CRT.
      there are special lead lined suits that will protect workers trying to contain reactor breaches where radioactive energies can be high enough to require lead, but most sites its the dust that will kill you, not the high radiation levels. so basically im guessing theyre going in with lead boxes to aquire plutonim contining sands, to raise cockroaches in. obviously theyre doing controlls too, to see if in fact radiation is deadly to roaches.. but the main concern is not spreading radioactive dust around, not wearing intensly heavy suits that could block an x-ray machine.

    53. Re:Safety? by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      Home of the world's best apples, grapes, hops, cherries, and weapons grade plutonium.

      What about the world's best watermelons, corn, potatoes, wine, strawberries, tomatoes, alfalfa, and sagebrush?

  4. Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by AmIAnAi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lets hope they don't get besieged by PETA, who seem to want to protect the rights cockroaches now

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
    1. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Trigun · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just invite them out to watch the taping.

    2. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by DrSkwid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what is your criteria for what you will and won't murder ?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    3. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by necama · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's hope the PETA people want to watch the roaches from very close by as the radiation is applied.

    4. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      I was going to make fun of your statement...but it's so loony anything I'd say would be redundant.

    5. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homo Sapiens Sapiens vs. everything else.

    6. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 0

      So what is your criteria for what you will and won't murder ?

      Things that I eat and are not domesticated are OK to kill ("murder" is specifically a human killing another human).

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    7. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by tftp · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Historically speaking, humans usually murder everything and everyone if that is in any way beneficial or entertaining.

      But really the question is not that simple. Would you savagely murder one fluffy dog to save 100M people from a deadly virus? Would you savagely murder one human to save 100M people from a deadly virus? Would you savagely murder 1M humans to save 100M people from a deadly virus? Where is your threshold? I believe this is what Protectors of the Ringworld couldn't wrap their mind about.

    8. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "So what is your criteria for what you will and won't murder ?"

      Objection, your Honor - Loaded Question (Or is it leading the witness?)!

      The correct question is "So what is your criteria for what you will and won't kill?"

      "Killing" is performing an action that causes something that is living to cease doing so.

      "Murder" is a legal definition, along with "manslaughter", "homicide", etc. By it's very definition, it is impossible to "murder" a cockroach.

      If you are going to troll, do it correctly.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    9. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Drall · · Score: 1

      Things that I eat and are not domesticated are OK to kill
      So...every single living thing, then. Gad, thanks a lot whoever posted this, you've made me sound like a PETA asshat!
    10. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      PETA and the liberals really are more interested in protecting roaches than people.

      Wait, PETA speaks for all liberals? Thanks for the information. Now we can really beat that strawman down!

    11. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    12. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      PETA member...cockroach...seems pretty redundant from where I'm standing.

    13. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Lord+Ender · · Score: 0, Troll

      You just called all non-christians immoral--how delightfully evil of you! May the mods have mercy on your soul.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    14. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      I thought you were joking, but PETA and the liberals really are more interested in protecting roaches than people.

      I was going to post a scathing reply to this, but I'm pretty sure after reading the rest of your message that you are just being sarcastic.

      This is /. - you need to add a </sarcasm> tag!

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    15. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i hope that doesn't happen because i plan on hosting lobster fights in the near future.

      i told my chef friend about my lobster fight plans and he cackled awhile before telling me that years ago he and his chef friends would have the lobster olympics going on in the kitchen- for example, holding a stick above a boiling pot of water and having a lobster with one claw clamped onto the stick, the lobsters would do a few pull ups / curls to avoid the hot water until finally succumbing to the wily chef antics.

    16. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      As an atheist, I have no compunction about slitting their throats and tearing off that faggot walrus mustache for hurting any living thing. Adam and Jamie can very well test radiation poisoning on themselves for the sake of science or their idiotic realdoll but involving an innocent animal for the sake of entertainment who has no choice in the matter is completely lacking in merit.

      ...

      You DO know that cockroaches are insects, right? Unless you're also willing to rail against the pesticide industry for killing your "friends", your argument sounds a little hollow...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    17. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by quasius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not sure I really like the post; but just noting that if he had said how the mythbuster's alleged atheism allowed them to be more "objective," "scientific", or whatever, he would have been modded up "Insightful."

    18. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I'm an atheist and say fuck the cockroaches.

      Well, even not considering the question of joy, I see major technical difficulties concerning having sex with cockroaches.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    19. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Dude, it's Friday, not Tuesday.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    20. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are truly peaching the gospel, brother!

      Praise Jebus!

    21. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, I was reading TFA in the link and I'm like, "Sweet! I'm going to Fright Fest Tomorrow". Then I see it's from 2006... damn. Well, maybe this year? =P

    22. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what is your criteria for what you will and won't murder ?


      Is it healthy to eat?

      Is it unethical for a mean nasty snake to eat a cute fluffy bunny? No, but then why is it unethical for me to eat a cute cow?

      I have ethical problems with the raising of cows, but not for the killing of them for food.
    23. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by operagost · · Score: 5, Funny

      So what is your criteria for what you will and won't murder ?
      That depends. Are you still beating your wife?
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    24. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      It's called Utilitarianism, and has gaping holes in it without even talking about the number of people you'd kill to benifit others.

    25. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by guabah · · Score: 1

      PETA member...cockroach...seems pretty redundant from where I'm standing.

      On the rooftop ready to fall?

    26. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...involving an innocent animal for the sake of entertainment who has no choice in the matter is completely lacking in merit.
      You DO know that cockroaches are insects, right? Unless you're also willing to rail against the pesticide industry for killing your "friends", your argument sounds a little hollow...

      I'm not the AC you were asking but personally I take into account whether the insect is harming (or attempting to harm) me - kind of a self-defense principle.

      If the insect is intentionally trying to eat me (e.g. a mosquito) then I may even go so far as to kill the insect. If the insect has the potential to harm me but is not actively trying to harm me then I look for ways to distance myself from the insect (e.g. catching a fly in my apartment and releasing it outside). If it is likely that the insect and I can coexist then I try to avoid harming the insect (e.g. I try to avoid stepping on butterflies).

      My view may be a bit more nuanced than you're comfortable with but using an insects death for my personal entertainment would be something that I would generally avoid (but, then again, I don't find insect death to be particularly entertaining) while using pesticide to kill an insect would depend on the specific situation (i.e. how much danger the insect posed to me and other humans).

      The bottom line is that choices in life often involve trade offs. One can have a goal of not killing insects and also have a goal of not being bitten by insects. If some other goal conflicts with my goal of not killing insects and that other goal is more important then I go ahead and kill the insect. On the other hand, I avoid killing insects for no reason.

    27. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it unethical for a mean nasty snake to eat a cute fluffy bunny?

      Is it unethical for a mean nasty snake to eat a cute human baby?

      What if the cute human baby is fed to the mean nasty snake by another human? What if the cute human baby is fed to the mean nasty snake by another snake?

      If it would be ethical for the snake to do the feeding but not for another human then is ethics even meaningful in an absolute sense? Or are we merely left with members of each species working with other members of that species to fulfil certain evolutionary desires.

    28. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      The bottom line is that choices in life often involve trade offs. One can have a goal of not killing insects and also have a goal of not being bitten by insects. If some other goal conflicts with my goal of not killing insects and that other goal is more important then I go ahead and kill the insect. On the other hand, I avoid killing insects for no reason.

      How about asthma? Any critter that 20% of the world's population is allergic to has to be resettled, if not killed. Would you like to invest in the startup of a "Cockroach Preserve"?

      In an untrollish manner, I'm guessing not. I'll be somewhat more willing to buy the "all life is sacred" line when more of the folks SAYING it are willing to back their bark with their bucks.

      In short: I'm willing to buy pesticide to kill the critters. Are you ready to care for them over their lifespans, as well as their progeny? If not, don't criticize my actions; I at least TOOK action, whether you agree or not.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    29. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by foobsr · · Score: 1

      If 'insightful' one would not claim to be 'atheist', but agnostic, quote: "An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice." (Russell)

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    30. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they just irradiate the PETA members and claim they mistook them for cockroaches?

    31. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

      Wait - I belong to PETA, you insensitive clod! (People Eating Tasty Animals)

      --
      Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
    32. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I am with the Pak on this one. I have a five year old son and I would gladly murder every human and puppy dog on Earth to protect him, if the situation arose.

      Oh and by the way. Niven wrote quite a few books about the Pak protectors apart from the later Ringworld books. They are worth a look if you haven't seen them yet.

    33. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Lets hope they don't get besieged by PETA, who seem to want to protect the rights cockroaches now.

      Or maybe we should hope they do? Would it be immoral to trick the PETA people into getting into the radiation chambers with the cockroaches? Since it's for science?
    34. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about asthma? Any critter that 20% of the world's population is allergic to has to be resettled, if not killed.

      If I knew for certain that asthma would be completely cured if and only if humans caused cockroaches to become extinct then I might be OK with causing cockroaches to become extinct but the chances of such a correlation existing are so remote that it's hard to know what my opinion would be.

      As it is, the correlation between cockroaches and asthma is sufficiently weak that it doesn't really doesn't affect my preferences for (not) killing cockroaches one way or the other.

      It's worth pointing out here that the original article was about killing cockroaches in a slow (and probably quite painful) way purely for entertainment purposes. In this case, when I balance the entertainment I would get out of seeing cockroaches irradiated to death versus my preference for not killing cockroaches, the scales tip in favor of not killing cockroaches.

      Are you ready to care for them over their lifespans, as well as their progeny?

      If I choose not to murder some random person that doesn't obligate me to care for that person and their children.

      I think what you are saying here is that you believe that humans have an obligation to cause all cockroaches to become extinct (because of some vague relationship to human asthma) and that if I disagree then I am obligated to finance an alternative. Fundamentally, I disagree that cockroaches should be caused to become extinct but, even if it were true in some absolute sense that cockroaches should be caused to become extinct, I disagree that I have any obligation to make that happen myself. There are plenty of worthy causes in the world and a person only has limited resources to address those causes.

    35. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Why is roach eating any more evil than lobster eating? They both belong to the same general group of animals. I suppose they could complain that the roaches are eaten alive, but being boiled alive couldn't be any more pleasant.

    36. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

      Your sarchasm detector is obviously as broken as your morality.

      I'm serious.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    37. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      If I knew for certain that asthma would be completely cured if and only if humans caused cockroaches to become extinct then I might be OK with causing cockroaches to become extinct but the chances of such a correlation existing are so remote that it's hard to know what my opinion would be.

      Pretty powerful word there, extinction...

      The problem being that I never used it once, called for it, nor do I advocate it for ANY species.

      As it is, the correlation between cockroaches and asthma is sufficiently weak that it doesn't really doesn't affect my preferences for (not) killing cockroaches one way or the other.

      Pardon my saying so, but I believe that the doctors have a different take on it than you do.

      It's worth pointing out here that the original article was about killing cockroaches in a slow (and probably quite painful) way purely for entertainment purposes. In this case, when I balance the entertainment I would get out of seeing cockroaches irradiated to death versus my preference for not killing cockroaches, the scales tip in favor of not killing cockroaches.

      Believe it or not, I know a number of people dissuaded from dangerous personal experimentation after seeing it done on MB. You could almost call the show "Jackass for Geeks". Anecdotal evidence, to be true, but no more so than your guessing at any pain the roaches might feel.

      If I choose not to murder some random person that doesn't obligate me to care for that person and their children.

      Really? If you're American, I'm pretty sure some of your tax money goes to Welfare. I'm not equating the poor with cockroaches or vice versa, but the simple fact remains that darn near EVERY living beast needs food and shelter at some point. That costs cash. My question: Where do you propose the funds for cockroach care come from?

      I think what you are saying here is that you believe that humans have an obligation to cause all cockroaches to become extinct (because of some vague relationship to human asthma) and that if I disagree then I am obligated to finance an alternative. Fundamentally, I disagree that cockroaches should be caused to become extinct but, even if it were true in some absolute sense that cockroaches should be caused to become extinct, I disagree that I have any obligation to make that happen myself. There are plenty of worthy causes in the world and a person only has limited resources to address those causes.

      Again, with that word, "extinction". I've never advocated it, because I know what an ecosystem is. They faithfully play their part in nature as scavengers, and it works quite well. Let them stay there.

      What you seem to be missing is that they have NO part in the human ecosystem. Spreading disease, respiratory illness, and otherwise freaking out the squeamish, they need to be relegated elsewhere outside OUR environment.

      I'm not saying that you necessarily have to save the "domesticated" cockroach singlehandedly. I'm not claiming you have the resources to do so. What I AM standing by is that rather than complaining about it, you need to first figure out where the resources will come from to care for the ones you believe you need to "save".

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    38. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh? So you get richer by being moral? I'd say the opposite is true.

    39. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a five year old son and I would gladly murder every human and puppy dog on Earth to protect him, if the situation arose.

      For me, it would depend on the details of the situation. If every human and puppy dog on earth decided to kill my son for an invalid reason (e.g. racism) and the only way to protect my sone was to kill them first then I might just go ahead and kill them.

      Of course, in reality if I killed everyone on the planet except my son then he wouldn't have much of a life roaming the barren planet never able to have a wife or family.

      If my son was a bit older, I'd probably let him make the decision himself - and a part of me would hope that he had the intelligence to realize that death is unlikely to be worse than life (for him - but not for the people who would miss him) and that if the rest of humanity is allowed to live then they may even one day understand their existence.

      Not to get overly philosophical but killing everyone else to save my son would be more for my benefit than for his.

    40. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is roach eating any more evil than lobster eating?

      I think you'll find that PETA objects to both. PETA members tend to fall somewhere between vegans and vegetarians in their eating habits (and no, seafood is not vegetarian).

      That said, preventing various animals from being eaten is typically only one of many goals that a PETA member is likely to have. If a PETA member had to balance human starvation against eating animals the PETA member would likely be in favor of eating the animals. On the other hand, if a PETA member was merely balancing the taste of, say, lobster against the desire to protect animals then the PETA member would favor protecting the animals.

      There are people who want to create a false dichotomy - either killing animals is entirely good or killing animals is entirely bad. The reality is more nuanced. Killing animals has serious downsides but those concerns must be balanced against other concerns that are sometimes more important and sometimes less important.

    41. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...lobsters would do a few pull ups / curls to avoid the hot water until finally succumbing to the wily chef antics.

      For me, watching a living creature struggle for life, fail and die would be extraordinarily depressing - just another example of how the world we live in is fundamentally devoid of compassion. If I did want that kind of feeling (and I'm usually doing everything I can do to avoid that kind of feeling) then I could just read up on some statistics about global poverty - it's the same general punch line.

    42. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by budgenator · · Score: 1

      A good sized chunk of christian morality comes from the old testement which your Jews, Muslims, Mormons all believe is the word of god the same as christians in fact mormon are christians just like catholics, protestants, coptics and Eastern orthodox. If there is a Wikipedia entry for "Moral Lifestyle due to religious beliefs" the picture would be of a Buddist. There is no way I can image a voodoo practicioner being any less moral than a christian homeopathic doctor either.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    43. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there were Protectors on Earth now, the answer would be easy: The Protector would kill 6 billion of those not his offspring to save 1 infant of his own.

    44. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by tftp · · Score: 1

      ... and there is another theory which claims that this already happened ...

    45. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand what you are trying to convey in your message. Human beings; despite having built a "civilization", are still very animal like in that we are ruled by mainly our natural inclinations towards food, hunger, sex, desire, anger, and many root based survival needs. These base attibutes including our growing primitive awarness of the universe we occupy has created a unique mix. We are a species capable of fantastic creations equaled with a vicious streak capable of self anihilation.

      As a native of Earth; I will answer your question. Yes, I would kill 1 fluffy dog to save 100 million of my brethren from a deadly virus. Yes, I would assasinate one of my brethren to save 100 million people from a deadly virus. No, I would not be able to murder 1 million people to save 100 million others because I lack the cardiovascular stamina to do so. Besides, my arms would be hurting after the first 5 and my knowledge of explosives is limited to water ballons. Well, that's two out of three which isn't that bad, right? (notice how I left out word the "savage", LOL!)

    46. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That article is misleading and just plain wrong.

      Agnostic means anti gnostic (knowledge - bible, koran, etc...) agnostics also don't generally believe in omnipotent beings - gods.

      Atheism is just absence of beliefs. Atheists don't approve or disprove existence of gods - atheists just don't give a crap.

      What you are describing as disbelief of existence of higher beings, gods - actually, belief that there is nothing is Nihilism.

    47. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

      Wealth is evidence of morality. I'm rich because I've mastered myself, with willpower, discipline, determination, and self reliance. If you don't master these things, well, you wake up at 3 PM and deliver pizza.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    48. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 0, Troll

      What has a Buddist ever done? China is full of Buddists and look at them. Poor, dirty, smelly, almost animals. For 5000 years. They're still not free, and they lack the spirit to even want the freedom any man would want. On the other hand, the USA, a Christian nation, prosperous almost immediately, a shining example to the world. Morality yields a certain kind of nation - our Christian nation. I know it's not fashionable to call other races heathens and other religions immoral and depraved, but that's why morality is hard. And if Christianity isn't defended everywhere and expressed through abundant living in a Christian nation, then we'll sink to the level of animals, like the non-Christian nations.

      It ain't popular, but it's true.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    49. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You want to play the statistics game? Here's one for you. The wealthier, more educated, or more intelligent (by IQ), a person is, the more likely he is to be an atheist. That kills your (wrong in the first place) statistics.

      However, if you think morality is derived from christian values (as you define them--every christian has a different definition), then it is obvious that you have never studied even the tiniest little bit of philosophy. Put bluntly, you are too ignorant to even begin the discussion of what morality is, and what causes it. I suggest you start reading up on the topic of altruism in animals, evolutionary psychology, and moral philosophy in general. Until you educate yourself, you will continue displaying the unfortunate consequences of your extreme ignorance: bigotry, hate, and anti-social evil.

      I hope, for your sake, you can learn and grow at some point in your life.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    50. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      1: Stop. Your behavior is exactly what Jesus railed against in his own time.

      2; The country we're in is the one who's economy is tanking, who has a disproportionate share of the world's wealth, and who has a bolder "vice" element than the rest of the world. If actions judge morality, then we're probably the ones who are lacking.

      3: A Christian who claims to be moral has utterly missed the point.

    51. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      A good sized chunk of christian morality comes from the old testement which your Jews, Muslims, Mormons all believe is the word of god the same as christians in fact mormon are christians just like catholics, protestants, coptics and Eastern orthodox. If there is a Wikipedia entry for "Moral Lifestyle due to religious beliefs" the picture would be of a Buddist. There is no way I can image a voodoo practicioner being any less moral than a christian homeopathic doctor either. Yeah, the good old Old Testament. Such a great book to get your morality from

      http://www.evilbible.com/
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    52. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Your sarchasm detector is obviously as broken as your morality.

      I'm serious. http://www.unwords.com/unword/sarchasm.html

      Definition of sarchasm :.

      1. (n.) The abyss between the creator of witticisms and the intended recipient who does not find the humor in it.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    53. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I think at least in the US it's not really about atheism and Christianity. It's more about Blue Team vs Red Team. So if you say "the Blue Team have better morality" or "the Blue Team are smarter" in a forum where the Blue Team outnumber the Reds like slashdot you'll get moderated up.

      Just like if you say "Duke rules" at Duke, you'll get a cheer. The odd thing is that most slashdotters would probably sneer at this as dumb jock behaviour, but they'll happily mod up Blue Team posts and mod down Red Team ones.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    54. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a troll it is much more correct to use the more loaded word.

    55. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Tim+C · · Score: 2

      If you are going to troll, do it correctly.

      Deliberately using a loaded term in order to better incite a reaction isn't trolling correctly?

    56. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Personally, my criteria for "murder" involves a human: if you aren't killing a human, it isn't murder. That aside, I have no real criteria for killing animals. Most don't make me uncomfortable in the slightest (bugs, delicious and juicy cows, etc)... even though I haven't killed some of them personally, I'm quite ok with them being killed, and benefiting in some way from that. A few animals, I'm more squeamish about (think cats and dogs), but I freely admit that there's no rational reason for this. However, even with those animals, I don't care what someone else does to them. That's their business.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    57. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by abb3w · · Score: 1

      By it's very definition, it is impossible to "murder" a cockroach.

      Probably, although not all jurisdictions explicitly require a human; I(AmNotALawyerNorASubject) presume a cockroach does not meet the standards for "a reasonable creature in being" to meet the common-law definition of murder in the UK.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    58. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by abb3w · · Score: 1

      That depends. Are you still beating your wife?

      "I feel questions about my sex life are inappropriate for this forum."

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    59. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      You're answering a question with some questions.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    60. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I agree, most of Christianity ain't very Christian

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    61. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Suicyco · · Score: 1

      Have you ever used bleach? What about the billions upon billions of bacteria you have slaughtered in your life?

      ALL LIFE on earth EATS other LIFE. Period. Get over it. If god didn't want man to eat meat, he'd stop making cows out of beef.

      At least humans have some morality about killing. Ever seen a cat torment and kill a small creature? For pure pleasure with evil intent?

    62. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wealth is evidence of having a rich daddy. I'm rich because I've been lucky enough to be born to old money. If you don't have rich parents, well, you obviously are retarded and deserve to die.

      Fixed that for you.

      HTH FOAD

    63. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      If there is a Wikipedia entry for "Moral Lifestyle due to religious beliefs" the picture would be of a Buddist.
      I wouldn't go that far. There are as many shades of Buddhists as there are Christians.

      There have been plenty of occasions where Buddhists have picked up guns and shot people or planted bombs, etc... in the disputed regions of the world (China, Tibet, and so on) and still call themselves Buddhists. Just like there are people who do un-Christian acts and still call themselves Christians. The problem is that we as Westerners (I assume you are one, too) don't know about it because of a lack of media coverage caused by language barriers, the remoteness of the incidents, and other factors.

      The Western image of the fat, smiling, passive Buddhist is accurate as often as the Western image of the pious, charitable, humble Christian.
      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    64. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 0, Troll

      My daddy was rich, but I am a self made man. He loaned me $10 million to start my own business, but I paid him back every penny. Don't tell me I got my money from my dad, or from anybody else. I earned it all without help, by my own hard work and discipline.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    65. Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      If god didn't want me to fuck choirboys he wouldn't have made them so damn attractive.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  5. Yeah, but... by rholland356 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yeah, but how will they do stuff to Kari that won't cause permanent damage to her DNA?

    1. Re:Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'll do some damage to her with MY dna...

      Oh for the love of trolling

    2. Re:Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We NEED that DNA. It's of great importance.

    3. Re:Yeah, but... by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Kari should pass on this on. send in the other ones, just leave Kari alone. She should be protected.

    4. Re:Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but how will they do stuff to Kari that won't cause permanent damage to her DNA?


      I've got plenty of extra DNA to share with her.
    5. Re:Yeah, but... by Hells · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that, a third boob would be nice.

    6. Re:Yeah, but... by duguk · · Score: 1

      What about combining both together and having one giant superboob?

  6. Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Marcion · · Score: 3, Funny

    Strange how little cats and dogs are protected on TV, but our little six-legged friends, well 200 can merrily risk their little lives in the name of pseudoscience television.

    1. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Six legged friends? WTF? Anything you can buy a trap for is pretty much fair game. Anything you can smash with a shoe is fair game.

      I'd be surprised if the place wasn't crawling with cockroaches already.

      It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment. What the hell is this shit?

    2. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Drall · · Score: 1

      Anything you can buy a trap for is pretty much fair game.
      So we can happily nuke anything smaller than a bear? Unless you're already the beneficiary of some Marvel-style mutation, your number's up, mate.
    3. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by nategoose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well people ate plenty of roaches on Fear Factor and few people minded much except the people who were eating them.

    4. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Vellmont · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      Strange how little cats and dogs are protected on TV

      Strange that people like yourself can't tell the difference between a cockroach and a dog.

      Do you hate antibiotics as well, because it kills bacteria? Exactly how far down the scale do you draw your line?

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by maxume · · Score: 1

      I'm going to cook my dinner soon. Apparently it used to be a cow(or perhaps a bull).

      Hopefully you are talking about it being silly to protect cats and dogs(and really, I don't think they are protected, I think that it simply isn't worth harming them during broadcast because a bunch of people freak out).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by SydBarrett · · Score: 5, Funny

      Strange that people like yourself can't tell the difference between a cockroach and a dog.

      Dude, roaches and dogs taste COMPLETELY different.

    7. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I draw my line somewhere at the bottom of the primate area. It is a fuzzy line, but it is there somewhere. What concerns me more is the number of people that can't tell the difference between a dog and a human.

    8. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mythbusters is not pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is when people misuse scientific terms to tick people into believing in some manner of BS.

      Mythbusters uses their science terminology properly, is open to peer review, and doesn't try to trick anyone. They even go so far as retesting things if their viewers find holes in their methodologies. It may not be formal, academic science, but it IS real science.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    9. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by I.M.O.G. · · Score: 1

      Well people ate plenty of roaches on Fear Factor and few people minded much except the people who were eating them.

      I bet the cockroaches minded.
    10. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by dvice_null · · Score: 1

      > I'm going to cook my dinner soon. Apparently it used to be a cow(or perhaps a bull).

      It used to be a bull, but then it became a cow? So the meat on your plate...

    11. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by RingDev · · Score: 1

      I LOL'd.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    12. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by nategoose · · Score: 1

      Only briefly.

    13. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by stewwy · · Score: 1

      just in the interests of Science I can inform you that having eaten both dog and cat, dog tastes like beef and cat tastes like chicken, at least in sweet and sour form ( about 10 yrs ago my local Chinese take away was done by environmental health for serving it)

    14. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Surt · · Score: 1

      They certainly won't get a humane association or aspca certification for this show.
      Beyond those certifications, most mammals have additional protective laws on the books in basically every state, while insects do not. So doing the same to a cat or dog (without a research permit) would likely be illegal in any US jurisdiction.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    15. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by DrKyle · · Score: 1

      It is poorly done science, which makes it junk science / bad science.

    16. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I draw my line somewhere at the bottom of the primate area. It is a fuzzy line, but it is there somewhere.

      I don't see that it has to be a line. In my view, a continuum makes more sense.

      I have a strong desire to preserve human life. I have only any extremely weak desire to preserve the life of the simplest organisms. Everything else is somewhere on the scale between those two extremes. For me, a big factor on where I put something on the scale is how much something understands that it is alive and how much something desires to continue to live.

      Others might take a more specist approach and base their placement on similarity to humans.

    17. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by 517714 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      TV Personalities peers are not scientists - they are TV people, so peer review is dubious. Viewers of television programs such as this are far more interested in good TV than in science, so their feedback is of dubious value. Do you have any evidence that they actually are open to viewer feedback? Sure they say they are, but if you accept there claim without substantiation, you have failed to apply scientific priciples yourself. I have seen the program several times. I have been amazed at how lame their tests sometimes are, particularly when using Buddy the wonder dummy, or whatever they have named him, and how they clearly do not apply critical thinking in the design of their experiments, nor in the conclusions they make from them. In how many episodes have they applied thrust off-center and sent the dummy in circles rather than down range?

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    18. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't stick a poodle in a microwave, but radiating cockroaches is okay? Classic mammalian bias. "We pity what is most like ourselves" (or something to that effect) --Miguel de Unamuno

    19. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is not science, it is a television program. It is constructed for entertainment purposes and they have no obligation to be fair, thorough or even competent. Their obligations are to be entertaining and to fill a time slot and to not offend sponsors or be sued.

      OK, maybe they sometimes DO science, but it is bad science with laughable conclusions. They start with a vague hypothesis and little facts and state a shaky hypothesis. They then proceed to create an experiment to test the shaky hypothesis in the flashiest manner that their miniscule budget and episode lead time allows. They then continue, frequently without consultation of any actual expert in the field they are experimenting, to disprove their bad hypothesis with their failed experiment. Generally all they ever prove is that they dont know enough about the myth to ask the right questions or construct a meaningful experiment.

      It is hard to take them seriously when you can see the obvious flaws on video. Take the episode where they tested if cell phones could cause a fire at a gas pump. As far as I can tell, they never even bothered to investigate if there have been any documented cases of this happening. If they did, they never said so on the air and it is not written down anywhere. Which tends to make it a little difficult to peer review. Episode where they tested if it was possible for someone to be buried alive in a coffin and live to dig themselves out. So they bury the guy in a titanium hermetically sealed coffin 12 feet underground, which is a far cry from the pine box a foot underground which was common when some of these events allegedly happened. MYTH BUSTED!

      I particularly enjoyed the episode where they couldnt build a black powder engine in a few days, so haha those stupid guys in the 1600s were boobs for spending their lives trying to figure it out. I have an experiment for them. Before trying to build that, why not see if you can build a working internal combustion engine from scratch in three days? Cant do it? Internal combustion: MYTH BUSTED!

      I am not trying to flame here, but its a damn TV show. It is NOT science.

    20. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1


      Well, they don't always use the terminology properly, and they definitely don't always do the science properly, so I'm not sure it's REAL science. They may use the scientific method, but they're not very good at coming up with & properly testing hypotheses.

      How about callling their version pop-science? That's about as close as I'll come to calling it science.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    21. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by jtev · · Score: 1

      Most likely a steer (castrated bull), that was knocked senseless before having it's throat slit. (they are still alive for that part. Hearts are very good pumps) Cows get slaughtered at a much later age, and are fairly tough.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    22. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad to be seeing mythbusters, because for sure this program will be the only "reality show" to be seen in the next century.

      The best science program ever aired. Kudos to them.

    23. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by john83 · · Score: 1

      if you accept there claim without substantiation, you have failed to apply scientific priciples yourself. I refuse to listen to scientific criticism from someone who doesn't distinguish between the homophones of 'their'.
      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    24. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Satanboy · · Score: 1

      Dude, roaches and dogs taste COMPLETELY different


      yeah, and you can't unload a truck full of cockroaches with a pitchfork. . .
    25. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      especially with chipotle sauce,de licious,roaches are best smoked and crunchy

    26. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by mikaela.elizabeth · · Score: 1

      As someone who's tried both cockroaches AND dog (every been to Cambodia?) the only difference is that I can fool myself into thinking dog might be something else. The only thing that tastes remotely like cockroach is spider, which is somehow not an improvement in my mind.

    27. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Epistax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree somewhat, however..

      They start with a vague hypothesis and little facts and state a shaky hypothesis.
      Well, this satisfies a myth then. If what they started with had facts or a sold hypothesis, it wouldn't be (presumed to be) a myth. I haven't seen them test if a feather and a rock will fall at the same speed in a vacuum. My take on it is their whole point is to take on anything with a lot of hearsay and not so much fact.

      I don't know how they work behind the scenes, but my guess and hope would be they do a ton of stuff that never airs because it becomes too obvious and/or not fun to watch. That IS their prerogative. They say "plausible" or "busted", but they only mean in terms of their data point(s).

      Their methodology may not be perfectly sound, but they never claimed to be any final source of information. To me, they try desperately to look like technologically inclined rednecks. They even grew an extra beard on the show just for that purpose. To take them for anything more .. well.. what do you need, a freak'n disclaimer?
      "All data collected in this show is just added to the total data collected by anyone anywhere and does not represent any sort of total coverage of any particular topic in specifics or generalities. You'd be a cheese brained fool to take what this show presents to be the truth outside of its own scope and you'd deserve a federally regulated flogging if you apply the data presented to other real world situations. If in any event you use anything you saw on this show to save your life, Darwin will smite you from the Earth with a great vengeance." ... would that do it for you?

      BRB.. more beer...

    28. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, and you can't unload a truck full of cockroaches with a pitchfork. . .

      Nope. Those machines for blowing cellulose insulation work just fine, though...

      - T

    29. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      >> Their methodology may not be perfectly sound, but they never claimed to be any final source of information.

      And thus you have just proven his point.

                -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    30. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by horza · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's science, and one of the best kinds... inspiring, entertaining, and educational. They do appear to check for documented cases, eg firing a bullet in the air, and where they do find one they admit it must be true even though their results appear contradictory. Coming up with a hypothesis and testing it is good science. If it's shaky then the laws of physics will find find out. As an earlier poster said, if an assumption upon which a hypothesis was made is thought to be flaky, they will go back and retest using everything suggested by the viewers.

      I assume if they don't mention a documented case then they couldn't find one. Eg for cell phone at gas station:
      http://www.automedia.com/Protecting_Yourself_While_at_the_Pump/dsm20040101sp/3

      For buried alive, they admit in some experiments they have to compromise if it means a high chance they will be killed. They do their best to work around it.

      For the black powder engine, as well as the other ancient recreations, it's far simpler than a modern combustion engine. Even there I am impressed how they can take a seized up old car or cement lorry and coax the internal combustion engine back to life within such a short time. Before they destroy it.

      You can nit pick a couple of individual experiments out of the hundreds they have done... do it in their forums and they will do another episode for you to prove they can eliminate any holes you can find.

      It is a TV show. And it IS science.

      Phillip.

    31. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by kid-noodle · · Score: 1

      Epic fail. Apart from anything else, dog is nothing like beef. The meat is closer to venison - much heavier. Tastes good though :) I can't vouch for roaches, but cicadas mostly taste crunchy. (Issan cooking for the win)

      --
      fortune -o
    32. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      That's nothing... on Iron Chef they regularly have live shellfish that they then boil alive... and of course there is pretty much any cooking show that shows cooking of animal meat... where did that meat come from? Could have been from a pet cow that someone lovingly tended to and treated as a member of their family (for all we know).

      I never did understand why cats/dogs/pets in general were given special consideration. Personally I won't eat typical pets because they aren't good eatin' which is to say that people probably already tried them out and decided they didn't taste too good. Now when I hear about dogs bred as foodstock or cats or rats.... I'm curious what they taste like as they must have some culinary quality to them for people to go to all that effort.

      Humans are omnivores. We will be until some environmental pressure forces us to do otherwise... and by environmental I don't mean self-imposed restriction.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    33. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by Neo_piper · · Score: 1

      Most likely a steer (castrated bull), that was knocked senseless before having it's throat slit. (they are still alive for that part. Hearts are very good pumps) Cows get slaughtered at a much later age, and are fairly tough. X *buzz* I'm sorry wrong answer.
      The correct answer is that a Piston gun applied to the back of the skull is used to obliterate the spine/brain interface thus stopping the heart and all signals to or from the brain in a fraction of a second.
      We're sorry that you didn't win the car but you still get the set of GINSU Steak Knives you won earlier.
      Thanks For Playing!
    34. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by WML+MUNSON · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid to say that I've actually tried both, and they do taste a bit different. :P They're both pretty bland, though.

    35. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by abb3w · · Score: 1

      Take the episode where they tested if cell phones could cause a fire at a gas pump. As far as I can tell, they never even bothered to investigate if there have been any documented cases of this happening.

      See "peer review" remark. Have you bothered?

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    36. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by stewwy · · Score: 1

      I did mention it was in a chinese, wouldn't be surprised if different breeds taste differently tho' the local paper said it was usually alsations that had been used, and the cats where just reported as feral, just asked couple of old mates and they said it was late 1970's or early 1980's so further back than I thought

    37. Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? by jtev · · Score: 1

      It's applied to the forebrain, not the brainstem, the critter is braindead, but its body is alive for the throat slitting. It's actually part of slaughter law, at least in the US.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
  7. That would be great by El+Lobo · · Score: 0, Redundant
    That would be great! Well, unless the association for animal care begins scream about it (yes those guys are THAT weird)...

    Oh, and please, show more Kari in that episode and my life will be good.

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
  8. go-go roachzilla by User+956 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Mythbusters are going to take cockroaches and other insects and apply successively higher doses of radiation in a controlled setting.

    So, what precautions do they have on hand in the event one of them grows to enormous size and goes on a rampage?

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:go-go roachzilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what precautions do they have on hand in the event one of them grows to enormous size and goes on a rampage? If that happens then they simply unleash the gigantic centipede Coleoptrata against them.
    2. Re:go-go roachzilla by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      So, what precautions do they have on hand in the event one of them grows to enormous size and goes on a rampage?

      If they have any sense at all, they'll irradiate wasps and centipedes as well to control them.

      --
      -Dave
    3. Re:go-go roachzilla by markana · · Score: 1

      They're in the Tri-Cities - nothing but desert and sagebrush for miles around :-)

      Bug will probably die of boredom long before it gets to Seattle or Portland.

      (posted from the safety of a bunker on the wet side...)

    4. Re:go-go roachzilla by calebt3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lots of PETA activists as bait to lure it into charging through a pesticides factory.

    5. Re:go-go roachzilla by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the square-jawed guy with the white shirt and tie is standing by.

    6. Re:go-go roachzilla by RonnyJ · · Score: 1

      Another cockroach.

    7. Re:go-go roachzilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, that's why they're going to where the first nuke was made. If things go badly they'll just activate a building montage and whip up another one from the leftovers.

    8. Re:go-go roachzilla by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      So, what precautions do they have on hand in the event one of them grows to enormous size and goes on a rampage?

      Simple: Swap the RAM page to disk, and then use a big magnet to clear it.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    9. Re:go-go roachzilla by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      The Mythbusters are going to take cockroaches and other insects and apply successively higher doses of radiation in a controlled setting.

      So, what precautions do they have on hand in the event one of them grows to enormous size and goes on a rampage?


      Given that Jamie likes Big Boom(tm) and that Adam would probably have a Geekgasm if that happened... I don't think they'd mind that much. :)

    10. Re:go-go roachzilla by IronChef · · Score: 1

      So, what precautions do they have on hand in the event one of them grows to enormous size and goes on a rampage?

      Then they'll test the myth about giant bugs' exoskeletons not being able to stand up to their own weight.

    11. Re:go-go roachzilla by david.given · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, what precautions do they have on hand in the event one of them grows to enormous size and goes on a rampage?

      Adam will whip up something out of a chainsaw, some mysterious plumbing he found at the junk jard, and a large tank of napthalene that he happened to have out back. The result will have a major design flaw but will spew flaming death anyway. The result will be bolted onto Jamie's customised vending machine robot. With the addition of about twelve wireless video cameras, the result will go out and kick ass. Adam will get overexcited.

      Does that answer your question?

    12. Re:go-go roachzilla by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      You have seen the "loosening concrete solidified in its mixer with explosives" episode, right?

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    13. Re:go-go roachzilla by MSZ · · Score: 1

      There's that other myth about turning the laser pointer into turbolaser cannon...

      --
      The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
    14. Re:go-go roachzilla by mezron · · Score: 0

      So, what precautions do they have on hand in the event one of them grows to enormous size and goes on a rampage?

      There's a viagra joke in there somewhere lol

    15. Re:go-go roachzilla by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking, "Hey! I saw that movie!"

    16. Re:go-go roachzilla by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Well, they'll have a camera, so they're sure to get video of it. What more could you want?

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    17. Re:go-go roachzilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our gigantic insect overlords

    18. Re:go-go roachzilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking Mythbusters here. Stuff that makes big booms of course.

    19. Re:go-go roachzilla by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Considering previous episodes, one can only guess that Jamie used to be a cockroach wrestler, somewhere inbetween the circus acrobat and the astronaut phase of his career(s)

    20. Re:go-go roachzilla by abb3w · · Score: 1

      Actually FTA, it's Kari Byron, Grant Imahara, and Tory Belleci who get to play with radiation. Presumably this means Kari will get to play Damsel in Distress while Grant builds a robotic suit for Tory to try to beat it up with. When they can't handle it, then we cut to Adam and Jamie as you suggest.

      They'll also probably all be up for the Von Boom Award as well, but that's later.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  9. COAP? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny
    FT(Third linked)A:

    All the bugs will go back to San Francisco. But instead of flying, a Mythbusters employee is having to drive the bugs back. Airlines, it seems, don't like cockroaches on a plane.
    I don't know about the airlines, but I'd always assumed coach class was named so as a contraction of cockroach, since flying coach makes me feel like a cockroach.
    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:COAP? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Fuck that! Leave the little fuckers up there! We got enough roaches in San Francisco!

      Once they leave, they need to stay gone!

      Morons.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    2. Re:COAP? by mstahl · · Score: 1

      it seems, don't like cockroaches on a plane.

      I'm tired of all these muthaf**kin' cockroaches on this muthaf**kin' plane!!

    3. Re:COAP? by markana · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can't legally treat animals (or insects) as badly as the airlines treat their passengers...

      Cockroaches are used to better living conditions than coach anyway... certainly better food.

    4. Re:COAP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that the airlines don't like cockroaches on the plane, it's just that they can't legally have them on the plane unless Samuel L. Jackson is on the flight as well. %$@%!

  10. TMNT by vodevil · · Score: 1, Funny

    They should bring turtles. I'd like to see some mutant ninja turtles.

    1. Re:TMNT by spoondisaster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they'd have to be like... 16.

  11. i smell lawsuits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...from the PETA... I would not help with this experiment either.

    1. Re:i smell lawsuits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since stores are filled with roach traps and roach poisons, I kinda think any lawsuit is gonna get blown out the door by a judge REAL quick.

  12. not the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the whole point is that there are trillions or quadrillions of cockroaches around the world. most will die from exposure to radiation, but maybe some will contain a gene to help them combat radiation. doing a test on a few cockroaches with radiation won't do anything, that's not how darwinism works.

    1. Re:not the point by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      when has 'the point' ever had any impact on what they do on that show?

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    2. Re:not the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, pointy things leave deeper impact then blunt ones, which has been shown in many episodes on the show.

    3. Re:not the point by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      You are right, but the show isn't about the way things really are. It's about the way people think things are. That's why it's called Mythbusters. The myth isn't that some will survive due to random mutation. The myth is that roaches are impervious to radiation for some reason. I know, you'll say that that is obviously not true. That is correct, and that is also why most of the myths on the show end up being busted. Myths aren't based on facts they are based on sensationalism and ignorance.

    4. Re:not the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the myths end up being "busted" because they are VERY quick to draw a negative conclusion from short and shoddy experimentation. It's TV, not science.

      And cockroaches are impervious to radiation except when molting, which happens about once a week. See, this has actually been tested. By real scientists. You aren't a real scientist, and neither are the Mythbusters. I'm sure this won't stop them from dropping it in a tub of nuclear waste and claiming MYTH BUSTED! when they can't find it again, though.

  13. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by wanderingknight · · Score: 5, Informative
    Umm, until there's scientific backing to the claim, any "popular knowledge" is and remains a myth. That's the whole point of the word. From dictionary.com:

    5.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution. Seems mythic enough to me.
  14. Cruelty for the sake of entertainment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What exactly is Mythbusters going to contribute here than "LULZ BUGZ DYED ROLOFFLE" and Adam has a mustache that would be the envy of Freddie Mercury.
    All life is sacred and it is not the place of the Mythbusters to test the limits of a living being's survivability because of an urban legend or the popular beliefs of laypeople.
    Consider the shitstorm that Mythbusters would arouse if they were seeing if they used mice, kittens or puppies. Also kdawson and Zonk are idiots.

    1. Re:Cruelty for the sake of entertainment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, if life really were sacred, you would think there would be some kind of immediate and definite form of retribution from some noodly appendage or something. Actually, I doubt the FSM would care as long as you offer up some meatballs made from whatever you kill once in a while.

      Seriously though, the thought that life is sacred really doesn't carry much wright. If it was, there'd be no life as one must kill something to survive, even if it's only plants. What's that you say? Plants don't count? Hrrrmmm... But you didn't add a qualifier at the outset. The thought that life is sacred is is only to appeal to those without the foresight to see that treating others as you'd like to be treated is more beneficial to society than simply looking out for one's self, and if society flourishes, you are more likely to flourish in it. The whole concept of sacred baffles me.

      And if you use the, "But you'll go to hell!" line, where's your evidence. Not proof, just evidence. I choose not to believe in things I can not interact with or see someone else interact with. Might they be there? Possibly. Doesn't affect me much now, does it?

      ---Posted anon to feed the anon troll---

  15. Radiation? by quantum+bit · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I, for one, welcome our giant super-intelligent mutant cockroach overlords.

    1. Re:Radiation? by quantum+bit · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I, for one, welcome our humor-impaired crackhead moderator overlords.

      Do your worst, my karma ain't going nowhere.

    2. Re:Radiation? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, looking at your user name, I'd say you'll not get moderated down until you look at your score. So just refrain from looking at your score, and your karma is saved.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  16. Hmm... by Bwana+Geek · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Part of me wonders if some special interest group will lash out and/or try to intervene. After all, there are many people who believe that ALL life -- even cockroaches and other insects -- is sacred. But the other part of me thinks this is BITCHIN'!

  17. Call Homeland Security on these terrorists by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sheesh, this is obviously an attempt to create giant monsters to ravage America. Why do Mythbusters hate America?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Call Homeland Security on these terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kinda lame actually... The real story breeding power and finding that 1 in millions that successfully passes on it's genes. Want a super roach, kill the small ones. It's the beauty of the roach, dude. This kind of stuff is just silly misdirection (nothing to see at all).

      The show's gotten to child orientated... need an adult very to answer the real questions that plague us every day (like, does smoking too much pot really lower the sperm count and are there really topless photo's of Kari out there someplace)

    2. Re:Call Homeland Security on these terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, radiation does NOT make living organisms acquire superpowers, it is just another popular myth...about to be tested on the show.

    3. Re:Call Homeland Security on these terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded "insightful"?

    4. Re:Call Homeland Security on these terrorists by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      How the fuck did I get two Insightful mods on that? I'm not even sure it deserved the Funnys.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  18. I thought it was for a different reason by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Cockroaches are spread out and hidden in walls so they're in places that less radiation will hit. After nuclear winter, they can eat all the carcasses of higher life forms and just plain survive. I never thought,"Hey, cockroaches can withstand more heat than other living organisms." We all know the bacteria that lives in deep sea vents will last because it doesn't get it's energy from the sun, and its shielded from the radiation above ground. Life will continue after nuclear winter, that is certain, but will human life continue is the question.

    1. Re:I thought it was for a different reason by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I thought nuclear winter was an idea from the early 1980s, and I think the cockroaches-survive-nuclear-war myth is older than that.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:I thought it was for a different reason by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Course, once power goes out and places like NYC go back to their normal temperatures inside and outside, roaches will die off because it's so freakin cold.

    3. Re:I thought it was for a different reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always felt that the old "cockroaches will survive" was because they breed so fast. The fast breeding would make it so those who are less susceptible to radioactive mutations would fill out the population that is lost to weaker cockroaches. A human generation takes about 15-20 year to mature at a fast pace. How many generations of roaches, flies and ants will be produced in that same timeframe? Oh well, what do I know?

    4. Re:I thought it was for a different reason by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, according to rumor they've been seen eating the insulation on the inside of the reactors...so the claim is that they can survive, at least for short periods of time, extensive radiation. (I don't think I've ever heard it claimed that somebody followed one of them and figured out whether it later died of radiation sickness, or was rendered sterile.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:I thought it was for a different reason by Dash+Hash · · Score: 1

      Technically, human life will not continue, even if we survive for another 100,000,000 years.

      Considering the effects of evolution, who is to say that in 100,000 years, the decedents of modern humans would not be recognizable as humans in our current understanding?

      Compare what we call "human" today, and compare it to our ancestors from the past. How far back will you have to go until you reach a point where you say "That is not human." even though it is possible to trace our ancestry to them?

      --
      Calling a sword by a pretty name is no more than adding perfume to poison.
    6. Re:I thought it was for a different reason by Agripa · · Score: 1

      If our biological sciences become advanced enough, our decedents will be able to restore homo sapiens from backup media. It might make an interesting high school project.

    7. Re:I thought it was for a different reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roaches don't need to eat higher life forms. They can survive for a significant amount of time by eating things we don't consider food. For example, a roach can survive for months by eating the glue on the back of one old-fashioned-style postage stamp. There is enough starchy caloric energy there to keep them going.

      When you can survive fine from such a relatively poor source of food, you can pretty much eat anything. Thus most of the world is edible from a roach's point of view and that's one reason why they are everywhere. Food is not a problem for a roach.

      So after a war, they won't need to actually eat carcasses because they will still have plenty to eat otherwise.

    8. Re:I thought it was for a different reason by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I'm doubtful that would happen. Why would humans need to evolve anyway? Typically, an organism evolves to adapt to a changing environment (ignoring the occasional random, beneficial mutation). However, we are at the point where we change our environment to suit us.

  19. Not studied? by Anonamused+Cow-herd · · Score: 4, Informative

    'Contrary to popular belief, not a significant amount of research goes into cockroach radiation.'
    Funny, it seems that a lot of scientists have done just that.

    For a pretty decent explanation: the mysterious Dr. Karl!
    --
    -----[0_o]-----
    We are not amused.
    1. Re:Not studied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but that wasn't on a popular "science" television show, and so doesn't count.

    2. Re:Not studied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      That Dr Karl took May Berenbaum's Rad Roaches took out some cool parts and did not give credit... The original is a good read:

      [(Wharton 1959)] conclusively demonstrated that the American cockroach was, compared with the rest of the known irradiated insect world, a wimp; P. americana died at doses of 20,000 rads. In comparison, it was noted that D. melanogaster [fruit flies] had an LD100 [the dose that kills any member of the species] of 64,000 rads and the parasitoid wasp Habrobracon an LD100 of 180,000 rads.

      Dr Karl lifts the vocabulary and omits the data... good journalism.

  20. Suffer the little creatures by threaded · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What is it with animals that make make people go yuck that they then think it OK to do horrid things to them?

    1. Re:Suffer the little creatures by fm6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you answered your own question.

      I heard an interview once with a scientist who wanted "endangered species" to include the less cuddly critters. He cited the fact that when the last surviving California condors were captured for breeding, the first thing that was done to them was a delousing. It never occurred to anybody that if a species is endangered, then their parasites must be endangered as well.

    2. Re:Suffer the little creatures by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I strongly doubt that cockroaches are able to suffer. Their nervous system is simply too primitive for that.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Suffer the little creatures by camperdave · · Score: 1

      if a species is endangered, then their parasites must be endangered as well.

      Just because a parasite has infested an endangered species, doesn't mean that it can't infest a non-endangered one. Besides, the parasites might be one of the pressures driving the species to endangerment in the first place.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Suffer the little creatures by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Because cockroaches don't have faces and aren't cute. The closer an animal is to a human baby, the more likely they are to not care about it.

      On the other hand, I doubt it has much in the way of pain receptors and suffering in the way higher animals can feel. Gotta look that up, though.

    5. Re:Suffer the little creatures by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Oops, got that backwads. Closer to baby, more likely TO care.

    6. Re:Suffer the little creatures by evilviper · · Score: 1

      What is it with animals that make make people go yuck that they then think it OK to do horrid things to them?

      What is it about plants, that people are only too happy to trample them, or rip them out of the ground?

      What is it about the billions of microbes floating in the air around us that we don't give a second thought to MOVING, and thereby killing millions of them for no reason?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:Suffer the little creatures by fm6 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong on both counts. Most parasites co-evolve with their hosts. That means that most parasite species are unique to the hosts they inhabit. (Pediculus humanus capitis, for example, lives on the human scalp and nowhere else.) It also means that parasites can't do too much damage to their hosts, because they have nowhere to go if the hosts die off.

      Of course, there are parasites that jump species, and humans, having invaded almost every habitat on the planet, have encountered (and been infected by) most of them. Such species haven't co-evolved with their hosts and do indeed present a threat to them. But these are the exceptions, and it's only due to our spreading them around that they're threats to other species.

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Nukes? Cockroaches are dead even w/o radiation by dtolman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to "The World Without Us", by Alan Weisman - most of the roaches in the industrialized world will be Dead within 3 years of humanity disappearing! Thats without even the radiation. So don't worry... when we go, the roaches will go with us.

    1. Re:Nukes? Cockroaches are dead even w/o radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the oldest roach fossils found are 354-295 million years old, I think Weisman doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. They've been here since before we existed and they will be here after we're gone.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockaroach

    2. Re:Nukes? Cockroaches are dead even w/o radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, this is how rumors get started about who did or didn't claim 640K of RAM was enough for anyone.

      If you follow the link (http://www.worldwithoutus.com/did_you_know.html) you'll see that Weisman's claim is that coakroaches will freeze to death in cold climates once artificial heating has been gone for a few years.

    3. Re:Nukes? Cockroaches are dead even w/o radiation by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      I get the feeling you don't know who the fuck Weisman is or what he said, or what the wikipedia article you linked to says. Most of the pest species of roach would die off in the non-tropical regions if not for the warmth of human created habitats.

    4. Re:Nukes? Cockroaches are dead even w/o radiation by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      GP said "most" of the roaches.

      It implies general population will take a hit when man is no longer around, not that they can't care for themselves.

    5. Re:Nukes? Cockroaches are dead even w/o radiation by khallow · · Score: 1

      Even if you were completely accurate, that still puts cockroaches ahead. They can afford a few orders of magnitude die-off for a global presence. The human exinction can happen today. Cockroaches already got what they came for.

    6. Re:Nukes? Cockroaches are dead even w/o radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... that puts roaches and us about the same level?

    7. Re:Nukes? Cockroaches are dead even w/o radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because we all know the roaches couldn't do without us in the millenia BEFORE we showed up. Please. Reread the page and remind yourself that "industrialized" is not a synonym for "temperate."

    8. Re:Nukes? Cockroaches are dead even w/o radiation by dtolman · · Score: 1

      Does it put cockroaches ahead? Humans adapted successfully to almost every climate zone even before the introduction of agriculture. Even after a nuke war or whatever event destroys civilization, their will still be millions of survivors to spread over the world again... Without the heat zones we create (and the food we leave too), the roaches would still be stuck in the tropics. They're just another creature in the hanger-on's that follow and depend on humanity for success - rats, pigeons skin mites, etc.

    9. Re:Nukes? Cockroaches are dead even w/o radiation by gevantry · · Score: 1

      Well, of course. There won't be any edible garbage left. As the food supply shrinks, the cockroach population will shrink, and if there's anything remarkable about human civilization, it's enormity of its waste dumps.

    10. Re:Nukes? Cockroaches are dead even w/o radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering cockroaches been around for 300 million years that seems rather unbelievable.

    11. Re:Nukes? Cockroaches are dead even w/o radiation by khallow · · Score: 1

      I already answered your question. Yes, it does put cockroaches ahead. Where do you think all those cockroaches who hitched rides with humans would be without humans? They'd be stuck in their native regions. Instead, a few species are on every major continent.

  23. haven't seen the show, have you? by swschrad · · Score: 1

    lockers of explosives, Mentos and Diet Coke, magic flame-throwing geegaws of various types are all on the shelves in their little hideaway.

    the Mythbusters can handle themselves against radioactive roaches.

    but Lordy, help them if a fly gets in that test chamber......

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  24. Just great by burtosis · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I wanted to see the episode of what can live longest in a running 1500W microwave. All I got was this:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=482560&in_page_id=1965

  25. Don't let Jamie get hit with radiation... by autophile · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...otherwise his mustache will become huge and go on a rampage!

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
    1. Re:Don't let Jamie get hit with radiation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand, man...the Russians were already working on a beard...We had a facial hair gap!

    2. Re:Don't let Jamie get hit with radiation... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      No. no. That's the Tick in "That Mustache Feeling"

      great episode.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  26. Boric Acid by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    As a proud resident of cochroach-ridden New York City, I can report that the little devils are immune to everything but Boric Acid which--apparently--causes them to become constipated.

    1. Re:Boric Acid by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Boric Acid which--apparently--causes them to become constipated

      Are you sure you're thinking of boric acid, and not Borat (the movie)? I'm pretty sure I was constipated after seeing it...
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  27. And I thought they were geeks by shrikel · · Score: 2, Funny

    Haven't they learned ANYTHING from science fiction?? Geez. Well, there goes the neighborhood.

    --
    Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
  28. Dude! by markov_chain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where exactly did you go to high school? :)

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    1. Re:Dude! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      Soviet Russia.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:Dude! by ExploHD · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, sodium radiates you!

    3. Re:Dude! by slashdotmsiriv · · Score: 1

      Apparently. at Eureka High School

      http://www.scifi.com/eureka/

    4. Re:Dude! by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      I think you mean when did he go to High School.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    5. Re:Dude! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Apparently my mother's high school had a fun incident where the chemistry class accidentally manufactured a highly unstable and dangerous compound and then painted a lot of the lockers with it (it glowed). They shut down the school for a week? or two? while hazmat teams flew in from across the country. There wasn't any more mixing of actual chemicals... I seem to recall hearing that they also lost a chemistry prof who spilled acid on his lap, and he had to be hospitalized... anyway, there was some craaaazy stuff back then. Nowadays they're practically afraid to mix salt with water.

      (insert your-mom or genetic-mutant joke here)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    6. Re:Dude! by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, gamma sources are irradiated by YOU! *sorry*

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    7. Re:Dude! by Agripa · · Score: 1

      That sure sounds a lot like nitrogen triiodide but I never had an interest in its optical properties. One of our batches somehow ended up painted into door jams, inside drawer edges, and scattered all over the floor. It was all good clean purple fun.

    8. Re:Dude! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, until somebody lets some dry in a sealed glass vessel.

      I'd like to see more "real" chemistry in high school, but NI3 would not be among the experiments I'd encourage...

    9. Re:Dude! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We did that in my Russian school with a set of Matrioshka dolls. One escaped and later came to be known as become Rosie O'Donnell.
      The whole incident turned me off of physics and onto acid.

  29. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There has been too much garbage spewed here lately. You must be new here.
  30. take care by clem · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't get bitten by any of those radioactive cockroaches. Lord knows the superpowers you'd acquire.

    --
    Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    1. Re:take care by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      The ability to instantly hide behind/beneath furniture when the light is turned on.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    2. Re:take care by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      I've always wanted the powers of hiding under the fridge, living without my head, and grossing out chicks.

      Well, one out of three ain't bad.

    3. Re:take care by iknowcss · · Score: 5, Funny
      Hmmm:
      • Fear of light
      • Lives mostly indoors
      • Hunched over
      • Content with junk food
      *looks at "computer nerd" checklist*
      *looks at "Cockroach-Man" checklist*

      Oh my God.

      I HAVE SUPER POWERS
      --
      Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
    4. Re:take care by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      When exposed to a bright over head light, you have the sudden urge to scatter? Super Villians beware!

      --
      Sig it.
    5. Re:take care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the ability to eat shit and live a super power?

    6. Re:take care by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Bah, every IT manager already has THOSE powers

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:take care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if it's Madagascan hissers we're dealing with, I can safely testify that these "superpowers" would largely consist of being able to sleep 70% of the day, (if one is a male) being able to headbutt another guy into submission and thus get ladies, hissing loudly if anyone dares to disurb you during your naptime, as well as devoloping an odd addiction to carrots and apples.

  31. Quantum Computing Myth? by MOBE2001 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I wish Mythbusters could do the same thing for quantum computing but unfortunately, the superposition of quantum states only occurs when nobody is looking. Kind of convenient, don't you think? So much for empiricism. ahahaha... At any rate, Mythbusters is not about uncovering myths, but about making sure their own chosen myths remain beyond public scrutiny. The same is true for Slashdot and their chosen censors, uh... moderators, BTW. Thanks for the laughs, anyway. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

    Now, moderators, do your solemn duty. ahahaha...

  32. From Caltech via the Wayback Machine by rawshark · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Re:From Caltech via the Wayback Machine by BooleanLobster · · Score: 1

      I would love to see the National Institute for Standards and Technology establish the standard "reference cockroach".

      --
      In hell, you will find a mountain of broken, feces-covered typewriters and a stack of copies of the First Folio.
    2. Re:From Caltech via the Wayback Machine by john83 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would love to see the National Institute for Standards and Technology establish the standard "reference cockroach". Bah! They'd only over-specify it. Kernighan & Richie's cockroaches are entirely good enough for most uses.
      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  33. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by burtosis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Still waiting for the episode on Catholicism.

  34. stop breathing by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    Strange how little cockroaches are protected in your view, but our asexually reproducing little unicellular friends, well 2,000 can merrily risk their little lives in the name of you breathing.

    see? anyone can play this retarded game

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:stop breathing by oatworm · · Score: 1

      Anyone can play? Ooh... my turn!

      Strange how little bacteria are protected in your view, but our non-DNA carrying viral friends, well, 2,000,000 can merrily risk their little lives in the name of you not having influenza.

      This is fun. Let's try another game.

      In Soviet Russia, bacteria sacrifice you!
      In Soviet Russia, cockroaches protect you!
      Imagine a beowulf cluster of cockro... okay, I'm done.

  35. Hanford's nuclear waste tanks might explode by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 1
    I understand that Hanford has a problem with the chemicals in some of their liquid radioactive waste tanks. They've basically mixed together all manner of radioactive chemicals without much regard for how they would react with each other. There is some danger that some of the chemicals might react violently, with dangerous amounts of radiation being released into the environment.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  36. Safety isn't the issue by palladiate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a former life, I worked as an NDT technician. One of our biggest jobs was industrial radiography. Which, long story short, involves radioisotope cameras and lots of safety training. With an radiation safety expert, radiation alarms, survey meters, and proper equipment they'll be plenty safe.

    The biggest problem for them would be to properly dose the cockroaches. What kinds and levels of radiation will they be receiving? Any clown can x-ray a roach until it dies, but what would the fallout profile of a world-ending nuclear war look like? What's the long-term effect of radioisotopes in their bodies? How much ionizing radiation will they receive?

    There's alpha, beta, gamma, neutron... What kind of radiation are they going to use? Safety, while incredibly important for an experiment like this, is relatively easy to accomplish if they get an expert. Attacking the correct problem may prove far more troublesome.

    1. Re:Safety isn't the issue by jythie · · Score: 1

      TFA gives a few more details, including dosages, but like most mythbusters experiments they are probably going to do just a simple set of the most commonly know situations and completely ignore fallout and such.

    2. Re:Safety isn't the issue by bmerlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is Mythbusters. They'll do whatever they think is coolest, correctness be damned.

    3. Re:Safety isn't the issue by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      It's curious that in a post dealing with nulear safety, with a subject line of Safety isn't the issue , you chose "In a former life..." as the introductory phrase.

      This leaves but one question for the intrigued mind: how high did Chernobyl roof really fly?

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    4. Re:Safety isn't the issue by Garabito · · Score: 1

      Any clown can x-ray a roach until it dies Which is actually what the show is about.

    5. Re:Safety isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > This is Mythbusters. They'll do whatever
      > they think is coolest, correctness be damned.

      Translation: They'll blow up the roaches.

    6. Re:Safety isn't the issue by budgenator · · Score: 1

      This leaves but one question for the intrigued mind: how high did Chernobyl roof really fly?
      I want to know if the Orkin man still sprays what's left of the containment building for roaches?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:Safety isn't the issue by NotmyNick · · Score: 1

      Translation: They'll blow up the roaches.
      Nah. Kari's involved. She'll carve them foam body armor the keep them from harm.
      --
      Notmysig
  37. wont someone think of the Cockroaches! by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ok so when does the "But all life is valuable" argument begin to sound idiotic. what about the Aids virus? what about that life? what about all other Virus "Life-Forms" that cause all kinds of horrible ailments and diseases? wont' somebody think of them too? is there life any less valuable then another?

    1. Re:wont someone think of the Cockroaches! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A virus is not defined as a living organism as it isn't an organism. You can torment HIV all you want.

    2. Re:wont someone think of the Cockroaches! by vic-traill · · Score: 1

      What about the *children* of the cockroaches, goddammit?

      I was hoping I could get an 'you insensitive clod, you' in here, but it didn't play out.

      More seriously, I think we're going to be hard-pressed to get even PETA whipped up on the cause of the cockroaches, but at 5000 feet, it is pretty fscking sick to expose any living creature to radiation sickness and death just so people can be entertained by a TV program while they chow down on their crappy Swanson Salisbury Steak & Instant Mashed Potatoes.

      --
      [17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
    3. Re:wont someone think of the Cockroaches! by ewhenn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, that "life is valuable" line is a bunch of bull shit. If you look back over human history you would come to the conclusion that as a whole, humans do not believe other humans lives are valuable.


      To all of those whining "oh, how can they just kill those living things???". Put down your fucking hamburger, take off your leather shoes, and head off into the woods. Go take up your own cause and live naked in a cave you overzealous assholes.

    4. Re:wont someone think of the Cockroaches! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Ok so when does the "But all life is valuable" argument begin to sound idiotic."

      The moment it is made. There is zero logic to support it. It is an emotional argument, that is all.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:wont someone think of the Cockroaches! by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you are misinformed.

      General scientific consensus is that viruses (virii) are not, technically speaking, alive.

      Hence why anti-biotics (which are literally anti-life) do pretty much ZERO for that nasty sexually transmitted virus you are still carrying around with you.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    6. Re:wont someone think of the Cockroaches! by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

      thanks for clearing that up, now I don't feel so bad applying the ointment to my balls. Here I was worried about all them little virus dudes I thought I might be killing. It's bad enough when I think of all that sperm thats dying in..., well, See I could keep going and make a insulting comeback, but I am not here to start a fight, and there's no need to drag your mom into this.

  38. I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...awww, fuggit.

  39. I'm still waiting.... by mark-t · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... for Paul and Jamie to blast off and land on the moon to provide current affirmation that humanity has been there before. Although I'm sure that the hoax-sayers will just insist that they are part of the conspiracy also. Still... a condensed version of the trip would make an awesome extended episode (and they'd also get to bust some myths about zero-G during the flight).

    1. Re:I'm still waiting.... by QuantumFlux · · Score: 1

      Um... who is this "Paul" that you speak of?

    2. Re:I'm still waiting.... by Monkey · · Score: 1

      Especially if they made their spacecraft resemble a custom built Harley.

    3. Re:I'm still waiting.... by Blackhalo · · Score: 1

      Paul and Jamie are not exactly the ideal candidates for the 0G myths I'd like to see busted. Of course I'm thinking more along the lines of Girls Gone Wild...in Space! Peter North and a few Czech sorority girls though...

      --
      "There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
    4. Re:I'm still waiting.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Adam. Doh! Not sure where I got "Paul" from....

  40. A couple of things by confused_demon · · Score: 1
    First, about a year ago (maybe two) they were considering doing this at Lawerence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL). They even got to the point where there were film crews here being talked to about safety. The plan to do it here was eventually scrapped because of concerns that it would be bad press. For those that don't know Berkeley, CA has declared itself to be a "Nuclear Free Zone." No, I don't know anyone that actually knows what that means.

    Second, sterilization via radiation is a standard method for dealing with bugs where the females only mate once. That is, you farm-raise a bunch of the males, irradiate them so they're sterile, then release them into the wild so the females will mate with infertile, farm-raised insects rather thant he fertile, wild ones. So it's well known that radiation can keep bugs from reproducing.

    After giving up on LBNL, they were considering doing this at UC Davis. I don't know what the issues were that caused them to give up there.

    1. Re:A couple of things by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Nuclear Free Zone"
      Luckily for us all they are not capable of enforcing such a ridiculous declaration.

      If they ever were able to do so, their first act would be to abolish the Nuclear Force which , ironically, would result in the most spectacular explosion this world has ever seen (and apparently that was specifically what they were trying to discourage).
      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  41. creation of super-PETA by MoFoQ · · Score: 2, Funny

    o crap....don't want to have a mutant Super-PETA ppl.

    besides, this is for scientific research....not solely for entertainment like that roach-eating contest.
    (and for the record....roaches have been around for millions of years....they've survived the devastation that wiped out most other forms of life...they can surely survive if a few of their comrades get irradiated.)

    1. Re:creation of super-PETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a One-Eyed, One-Horned, Flying, Purple, PETA Eater...

  42. PETA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just shut the Hell Up. This is gonna be a cool episode.

  43. living things aren't fucking toys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's it.

    1. Re:living things aren't fucking toys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      living things aren't fucking toys.

      You're right. They're usually fucking each other.

  44. One myth busted another one started.... by pesho · · Score: 1, Informative

    FTFA: "(Viewers) should learn that things don't glow if exposed to radiation," she said. "And they won't be radioactive after being exposed to radiation." They most certainly do! There is scintillation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintillation_(physics)and there is Cherenkov effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation You can clearly see the glow in the attached picture to the Cherenkov radiation artcle. The radiation dose that and organism will survive strongly depends on the dna repair strategy that it uses. Rodents for example repair rapidly the actively used pieces of their genome and don't care so much for the parts that are not currently used. As a result they can survive higher doses compared to humans, but will pass more mutations to their progeny. High reproduction rate will help for a species to survive radiation exposure. Sure there will be lots of mutants in the progeny and most of them will probably not be very fit, but if you have big enough numbers this doesn't really matter.

    1. Re:One myth busted another one started.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And they won't be radioactive after being exposed to radiation." They most certainly do! There is scintillation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintillation_(physics)and there is Cherenkov effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

      You obviously didn't read the two wikipedia articles you linked in your own post.

      The one about scintillation clearly states that "The process of scintillation is one of luminescence whereby light of a characteristic spectrum is emitted following the absorption of radiation. This radiation is usually of a higher energy than the emission.". So you get irradiated by visible light, big deal !

      And please tell me how the cherenkov radiation has anything to do with the subject ...

    2. Re:One myth busted another one started.... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Neutron radiation can activate things with lasting radioactivity, but most things radioactive don't emit neutrons. And if you work at a high energy physics lab there are other ways to get activated too, but your run of the mill radioactive sources, like various specimens you can buy on ebay, won't do it. Cerenkov radiation is caused if there are particles moving faster than the speed of light of the medium, most radioactive sources do not have Cerenkov either.

  45. Number of Roaches? by Valiss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was always told that the cockroaches will survive a nuclear blast not because they are more resistant to radiation, but because of the sheer number and geographic ubiquitous.

    --

    -Valiss
    1. Re:Number of Roaches? by Der+Ninja · · Score: 1

      And why the Hell do we never consider the possibility that humans could survive for the same reason?

    2. Re:Number of Roaches? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I was always told that the cockroaches will survive a nuclear blast not because they are more resistant to radiation, but because of the sheer number and geographic ubiquitous.

      That doesn't make any sense at all... Nuclear winter will affect the whole planet, so geographic location doesn't matter. And the numbers of a creature says nothing about how well it will survive when all plants die from lack of sunlight, and all large animals die from lack of food.

      I think it's pretty well established that HUMANS will be the last surviving creature. We know how to dig extremely robust shelters, we have the technology to provide as much energy as could be needed, as well as recycle water, and thanks to methods of preservation, have the ability to stockpile an effectively unlimited supply of food.

      I imagine at least the US continues to maintain shelters that fit exactly these parameters, and is constantly staffed with numerous military personnel. Russia (and the other nuclear powers) might also, but I'm somewhat doubtful.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Number of Roaches? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Heck, little in the way of marine life would even *notice* a widespread nuclear war.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Number of Roaches? by Der+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Care to guess what other creatures will share those shelters with us?

    5. Re:Number of Roaches? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's pretty well established that HUMANS will be the last surviving creature. We know how to dig extremely robust shelters Yes but most houses we live in fall after an earthquake or hurricane. Sure we know how to build extremely hardy houses, but they aren't exactly easy to build. And thus a large part of the population will be homeless (and probably die).

      we have the technology to provide as much energy as could be needed Until oil is used up? Or until the local power generator freezes over?

      as well as recycle water Like... dumping waste water into the ocean, and waiting for it to be "recycled" as rain water?
  46. Speaking for angry gun toting liberals... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

    I belong to PETA...People Eating Tasty Animals.

    The radical "oh noes protect teh animals" crowd on the far left are as embarrassing to the normal left-of-center types like myself, as the whack-job "I will kill to protect teh fetuses" crowd are (or ought to be) to the right-of-center types.

    If you take a rational position (conservation/responsible procreation) and you drive it to the absolute extreme, you are a moron. If you attribute it to someone you disagree with, you are an asshole.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  47. A New Low? by Cunjo · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's not even a myth! It's just a common saying stemming from the fact that cockroaches are so prolific and notoriously hard to kill. What's next? they test the theory that there's more than one way to skin a cat?

    --
    "Those who think they know everything are of great annoyance to those of us who do." - Isaac Asimov
    1. Re:A New Low? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      You can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a critic.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  48. obligatory posting on cocroach overlords, anyone? by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 0, Redundant

    or may be, in Soviet Russia, the cockroaches nuke *YOU*.

  49. This bothers me by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This bothers me because they are essentially going to be killing living things to entertain us.

    Sure it's just insects who i would happily squash if they crawled on me. But it feels evil to kill things for a TV show.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:This bothers me by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      So.....

      I take it you don't like Lysol commercials either?

      I, for one, enjoy killing some things for entertainment.....Like letting my dog piss on the lawn of the jerk down the street just to watch the dead spots inexplicably multiply.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    2. Re:This bothers me by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, there should be little moral objection if they were to do this on lawyers.

    3. Re:This bothers me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it won't be KILLING them, IF they survive the experiment!

    4. Re:This bothers me by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it feels evil to kill things for a TV show.

      So every time they fumigate a TV studio, it's wrong? But it's okay to take a magnifying glass to the ants in your yard, because you feel like it?

      You're way too sensitive.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:This bothers me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pussy

    6. Re:This bothers me by the+Jim+Bloke · · Score: 1

      just think about cooking shows. Pretty much every single ingredient used - apart from salt and water, is the result of the death of a living thing, and its done for your hedonistic pleasure. Cockroaches perform a valuable role in the ecosystem - especially the mangled urban environment, but they breed fast enough that the loss is insignificant. Of course it would be better to kill something totally worthless, like American Idol contestants, but the myth they are testing refers specifically to cockroaches.

      --
      Big Brother watching us has got to be better than us having to watch Big Brother
    7. Re:This bothers me by swillden · · Score: 1

      This bothers me because they are essentially going to be killing living things to entertain us.

      I take it you eat only to survive, and never to take pleasure in it. Or do you never eat anything that was formerly alive?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:This bothers me by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      No.

      I enjoy the food I eat.

      However, I do not torment it or torture it before I eat it. Killing to live is part of life. Even vegetarians kill plants to live. It's a question of intent. The point of this mythbuster activity is not to prove that cockroaches can survive radiation- it is to entertain us and get us to watch them so they will get ratings.

      Next up-- what about that myth that cat's land on their feet regardless of the height of the fall? They can drop them from increasing altitudes from 1' to 1000'.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:This bothers me by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      They don't bother me. I understand a lot of people feel we are at war with bacteria which are out to kill us. The same is true for cockroaches. Lysol, raid and others are trying to get us to pick their weapon in the war.

      I don't have a problem with killing vermin invading my space. However, I don't film it and put it on Youtube to entertain others. I might film it and put it on Youtube to instruct others. The intent behind basically the same action is the difference between good and evil.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    10. Re:This bothers me by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      What, is the sensitive urbanite concerned about dangerous moral precedence?

      If that concerns you, maybe you should think about your carbon footprint and what living in a city/urban environment does to the environment compared to living elsewhere, and seriously consider stop consuming/buying so much. You'll kill a lot fewer bugs if you stop eating grain, for instance.

      As long as we're going to get relativistic: wouldn't it be better to have one cow killed and eat it, than to have a whole field of corn/wheat/grain killed - as well as the bugs on it - to make a couple loaves of bread? I mean, that's like planticide or bugicide or something.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    11. Re:This bothers me by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the point.

      I don't care that things are killed. It bothers me that we are killing these things for entertainment.

      How about the "24 hour kill a chicken network" or the "24 hour dogs fighting to the death" network?

      Death is a natural part of life. It doesn't matter if we kill the cow, or let it die of old age. It does matter if we make a show about "how badly can we injure cows before they finally die" show.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  50. Quote from Tyr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I have faith in nothing but this: when the universe collapses and dies, there will be three survivors: Tyr Anasazi, the cockroaches, and Dylan Hunt trying to save the cockroaches." -- Tyr Anasazi.

  51. Re:obligatory posting on cocroach overlords, anyon by MOBE2001 · · Score: 1

    or may be, in Soviet Russia, the cockroaches nuke *YOU*.

    In Soviet Russia, packs of rat-size cockroaches walk the streets of Tchernobyl.

  52. Obligatory by rbrandis · · Score: 0, Troll

    I, for one, welcome our irradiated cockroach overlords.

  53. Deadly virus? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hell, I might do it for fun.

    These kinds of "dilemma's" are nothing but intellectual masturbation. I'll tell you right now: in a real world situation, that man or that dog would be a greasy spot if it was only thought that their death would save 100,000 people.

    And as for the reverse, you can bet, in a quarantine situation, they would kill as many as it took (or as they could) to keep the sick separated from the well. It's the only thing that can be done in that situation, 1, 100, or 1,000,000. The reverse also holds: if you were stuck in a quarantine, and you believed yourself or your family to be in danger of being infected, you'd do whatever you could to break quarantine, even at the risk of infecting countless others...That's why they defend barricades with guns, not pamphlets on disease control.

    The desire to protect yourself and your loved ones trumps it all, when it comes down to it. That's just human nature.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Deadly virus? by mi · · Score: 0, Redundant

      These kinds of "dilemma's" are nothing but intellectual masturbation. I'll tell you right now: in a real world situation, that man or that dog would be a greasy spot if it was only thought that their death would save 100,000 people.

      And yet the US government is being rather harshly criticized for — not killing — merely waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorism suspects.

      Although a practical argument questions the accuracy of information provided by a tortured person, most of the objections come from the moral/ethical viewpoint. The criticism was so high, in fact, the Administration decided to stop doing it — lives be damned, we can not torture anyone, period. Not even if the torture is purely mental (such as waterboarding), rather than permanently disfiguring...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Deadly virus? by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      "The desire to protect yourself and your loved ones trumps it all, when it comes down to it. That's just human nature."

      Yes, but only because I find my genes are extremely important and beneficial for all mankind. I think it's vital for future generations they are preserved and disseminated. ;-)

    3. Re:Deadly virus? by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      I can't believe no more progress has been made since sodium pentothal.
      USA has (had) the money and the know-how to extract more accurate info from suspects instead of torturing them.
      My opinion is that somebody wants to spread terror instead of prevent it.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    4. Re:Deadly virus? by mi · · Score: 1

      USA has (had) the money and the know-how to extract more accurate info from suspects instead of torturing them.

      Actually, those chemicals are, likely, far more dangerous to the body, than the waterboarding — which even the CIA agents themselves undergo as part of their training.

      My opinion is that somebody wants to spread terror instead of prevent it.

      This theory would only make sense, if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faced any prospect of ever being released... As things stand, "spreading terror" through him is completely pointless.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:Deadly virus? by Bane1998 · · Score: 1

      Uhm. You're possibly the only post here on slashdot to ever get me actually angry. You must be a moron. 'Mere' torture? Capital punishment, fine. After due process, of course. (Which is woefully missing today) But even after due process, you don't torture someone for information. First of all, all it will get you is whatever it is you want to hear, it's completely unreliable, as has been studied. If we believe you're conspiring to kill us, and we go at you with a rusty saw, a blowtorch, and a pair of pliers, you can bet you'll tell us whatever the heck it is you think we want you to say, whether it's true or not, just to get us to stop. I can't believe we've reached a point where we're back to defending torture in our society. Seiously, wtf? How much more ignorant can you get? It screams redneck, how did you even find a computer to post on?

      And to those who might be confused about why capital punishment is okay, and torture isn't? Capital punishment is... a punishment. The ultimate, but a punishment. Torture is a flawed method of control and removing a person's choice. People should always have a choice of their behavior. Even if it leads them to a punishment (such as capital). It's why Cops should tase to incapacitate and protect themselves or others, but NEVER to 'convince' a person to take a certain action. It's why non-leathal weapons are possibly even more dangerous than leathal ones.

      Your simple minded ignorant statements are contrary to every bit of decency and morality we as a society have come to achieve. You're what makes me lose faith in humanity having evolved above anything but apes.

    6. Re:Deadly virus? by crabpeople · · Score: 1
      Im guessing altruism isnt your strong suit.

      "The desire to protect yourself and your loved ones trumps it [sic] all ... That's just human nature."

      Its no wonder society is the way it is. The rats escape the quarantine to infect others while the honourable sacrifice themselves, honouring their children, humanity and their ancestors. I dont blame you for leaving the quarantine, but you doom society to a dishonourable future full of self obsessed rodents, all carrying the same plague that you perversely call "Human Nature".

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    7. Re:Deadly virus? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      This theory would only make sense, if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faced any prospect of ever being released... As things stand, "spreading terror" through him is completely pointless. Oh, let's say you're a member of group X. Which is more likely to stop you from being a member of group X:
      -A fellow group member being killed with lethal injection, after he had time to make final statements and so on.
      -A fellow group member being slowly tortured for months then killed in a horribly painful manner without him having any chance to contact anyone.

      So yes it is spreading terror, he is spreading terror on behalf of the US against fellow members of his group. Of course that's not of much use when said terror makes one guy leave the group but ten join in his place.
    8. Re:Deadly virus? by E++99 · · Score: 1

      if you were stuck in a quarantine, and you believed yourself or your family to be in danger of being infected, you'd do whatever you could to break quarantine, even at the risk of infecting countless others...That's why they defend barricades with guns, not pamphlets on disease control.

      The desire to protect yourself and your loved ones trumps it all, when it comes down to it. That's just human nature.

      You're wrong. I would NOT break quarantine and risk infecting countless others. That would be the very definition of evil. While it's true that evil is one part of human nature, it is not the ONLY part.
    9. Re:Deadly virus? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      And what way is society, well?

      Consider for a second a perfectly honorable and selfless society. Now consider the hell it would become when even a single selfish and intelligent person were (by pure chance) born into it. Honor is simply a very nice way for those in power to keep the rest of society in line while they themselves aren't affected by it. After all it is not honorable to try and overthrow the abusive government.

      Also altruism doesn't exist, as in no one is selfless. You don't sacrifice yourself for society, you sacrifice yourself for your loved ones. If you did not sacrifice yourself society would shun your loved ones and thus you have no choice but to be "selfless." Possibly you feel that your sacrifice will give you personal rewards in some afterlife.

    10. Re:Deadly virus? by clem · · Score: 1

      So does that line work for you at bars?

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    11. Re:Deadly virus? by tftp · · Score: 1
      Then by your logic nobody would be working as a spy, or even as an undercover police officer. What do you think a mob will do to you, an undercover cop, if they learn who you really are? And their revenge on you would be not "just business, sir" but deeply personal, if you helped to arrest any of the family. They'd skin you alive, and then they start torturing for real.

      But as matter of fact, police and CIA and every other secret service recruit agents all the time. Even the army. So your reasoning is flawed. What really happens is that agents are not preparing for a failure and gory death. They are preparing for success and survival. When we start our cars every morning we do not see lawsuits and jail cells in our mind's eye in case we do something wrong; no, we focus on positive - that we will be careful and won't cause an accident; and psychology works great here.

      But even if a secret agent 007 is sent to an almost impossible mission into the worst den of worst torturers in the world, he simply has a poison pill on him. When you are talking about suicide bombers who already said their last words to the world the threat of a quick death is not that effective.

      You are also right about losing your moral high ground if you, as a state, torture enemy's fighters. You quickly then become worse then them. This is exactly why Abu Ghraib scandals were so harmful to the US's image. Now whenever Ms. Rice opens her mouth to teach some foreign dignitary a lesson in civility he replies "yes, madam, could you please write your fine advice on the back of this photo..." and you know what photo that would be.

    12. Re:Deadly virus? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      No, you seem to think of everything as black and white, true or false. In real life it's about percentages and numbers. The mob doesn't expect informers to disappear, they only want to make people think twice before snitching. As for not knowing about gory death, there is a reason the mob makes such things well known to those they wish to intimidate. Sure you can ignore such things when you're far away but if you're a spy and a snitch is skinned alive in front of your eyes you may consider resigning. It doesn't matter if there are 10 spies left if 90 others had second thoughts as a result, it's still a success.

      Nonetheless as I said in my post this can and does fail dramatically when, as you pointed out yourself, the reason for joining is nowhere near rational. Terrorist groups would gain ten recruits for every one they lost. Worse yet these recruits would now know that they have to, literary, fight to the death. This is simply propaganda and one that can be used by either side depending on which is better at the art.

    13. Re:Deadly virus? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      The thing with torture is that it can be used as great propaganda, by the terrorists. They've shown themselves to be more than good enough to use it as such. As was done in ww2 the point is to remove any doubt from the terrorist minds that death is preferable to surrender or capture. Not only does this remove any chance of them giving information when captured but it causes even higher losses to their enemies. Now they would lose some recruits but they'd gain even more than they lost from people who wish to "avenge their fellow countryman/muslims/etc."

      Even worse it could be used against the Iraqi people to keep them from talking to Americans. You'd need to add in some things about how talking will make them a suspect and how the Americans will drag them away to be tortured.

      There would likely be some creative editing of the truth such adding worse implications of what the torture involved and so on.

      The US needs to portray itself as the good guy, as helping the people and so on. It's either that or institute martial law, kill anyone who even looks funny and remove all media access. Once everyone who opposes it is dead democracy can be put into place. That would have probably worked better but no one had the balls to do it.

    14. Re:Deadly virus? by mi · · Score: 1

      Oh, let's say you're a member of group X. Which is more likely to stop you from being a member of group X:
      • A fellow group member being killed with lethal injection, after he had time to make final statements and so on.
      • A fellow group member being slowly tortured for months then killed in a horribly painful manner without him having any chance to contact anyone.

      Me? I'd say about equally... An average would-be terrorist? No idea — they may actually think, waterboarding (not being painful or disfiguring) is something, they can get through...

      On average the history of law enforcement shows, that the viciousness of the punishment does not deter crimes — in middle ages people were routinely killed for fairly minor offenses and wheeled/quartered for more serious stuff. So small a fraction of criminals were ever caught, the fear of punishment prevented no crimes...

      It is the inevitability of the punishment, that is a deterrent. In other words, "what we'll do to you" does not suppress bad guys — "we will get you does".

      So no, they waterboarded those, whom they suspected of withholding useful information — not just to scare the rest of the assholes crapless...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    15. Re:Deadly virus? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      First of all, all it will get you is whatever it is you want to hear, it's completely unreliable

      Silly boy, you don't torture people to get information, you torture people to manipulate them against themselves. I torture you regularly, then I torure your partner for a while and stop, then when I torture you some more, I ask questions to make you think your partner narced you out. Once you think you've been narced out by a contemporary, you lose loyalty to the group and start spilling your guts; wash, rinse, repeat.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:Deadly virus? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that it's inconsistent to not want to torture Islamist scum bags. There are other considerations here - like not wanting our spooks to get into the habit of doing it, and that it probably doesn't work - which the reason we don't do it to domestic criminals.

      It just seems normal police style psychological, non violent interrogation is the best way to get information out of people. But after I'm totally fine with sticking them alone in a small cell on suicide watch until they die of old age.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    17. Re:Deadly virus? by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      > Actually, those chemicals are, likely, far more dangerous to the body...

      Even if your "likely" were proven true I find it difficult to believe that the health of a suspected terrorist is more important than the information you can extract from him. Doesn't make much sense in light of what has been done to civilians in fallujah for example.

      With more reliable extracted information you also cut the number of suspected terrorists who turn out to be innocent.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    18. Re:Deadly virus? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The first. The second choice leaves the option of martyring the guy for the cause and recruiting a whole bunch of people. This is why we can't kill usama bin ladin - he needs a priavte room at some supermax for the rest of his natural life with accomodations made for reasonable religious things. We won't even be mean to him; he just can't leave.

      For the same reason, indiscriminate bombing and killing leads to more enemies than when we started.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    19. Re:Deadly virus? by NotmyNick · · Score: 1

      But what if you were the human destined to be that greasy spot? What's your opinion now?

      --
      Notmysig
  54. Just because some cockroaches survive by Arthur+B. · · Score: 3, Interesting

    does not mean coackroaches would inherit the earth. A good experiment would need to test radiation exposure over different generations... what if radiation makes them sterile? What if they have so much mutations due to radiation they start to drift and look the precious genetic information that allowed them to survive. We are constantly degenerating and are constantly evolving to preserve our fitness... would the coackroaches be able to do that if genetic drift was significantly increased? Maybe, maybe not.

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
  55. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by operagost · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can assure you that Catholicism does exist.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  56. Sig by JeffSchwab · · Score: 1

    Do you want to support ODF? Go here: http://www.petitiononline.com/appleodf/petition.html What's the required "affiliation" field on the petition?
  57. parallel universe by dubbleenerd · · Score: 1

    And in a parallel universe, a couple of giant roaches are transporting a box of humans to see if they can survive through 4 weeks of isolation on an island...

    1. Re:parallel universe by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      And in a parallel universe, a couple of giant roaches are transporting a box of humans to see if they can survive through 4 weeks of isolation on an island... In a parallel universe? Guess where you are, and why you are halluzinating stories about applying radiation to cockroaches ... :-)
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:parallel universe by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      a couple of giant roaches

      I've heard less flattering terms for the hollywood media owner scum, but there is more than a couple of them

    3. Re:parallel universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in a parallel universe, a couple of giant roaches are transporting a box of humans to see if they can survive through 4 weeks of isolation on an island...

      Where's Gary Larson when we need him?

      - T

  58. Pah. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

    They skipped the three best!

    Centrifuge

    The maximun centrifuge capacity of the cockroach has not been determined. An estimate could be made from the shoe and floor result.

    Fire with slingshot at a wall

    This would be a test of the sudden deceleration trauma limit of the cockroach, which is expected to be significantly higher than the crush point. The experiment has not been performed.

    Tensile strength

    Not determined.

    Though Explosion (A cockroach at ground zero of an M60 cherry bomb survived) is freakin tailor-made for the mythbusters.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  59. Pobre de la cucaracha ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya no podra caminar...
    (typical mexican song)

  60. air date? by Cyko_01 · · Score: 1

    any idea of when this episode is set to air?

  61. Not that fuzzy. by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

    It is a fuzzy line, but it is there somewhere.

    The nice contractor with the bowl of candy on her desk? She can live. The a-hole two cubes down who's always humming or clipping his nail or doing something that really shouldn't be done at work? He can go.

  62. Mimic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone see this movie?

  63. Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobobo

    You just gave me flashbacks of that show. At least now what we know what the people that made that show were on now!

  64. Correct me if I'm wrong... by Solandri · · Score: 1

    But isn't it the fate of most cockroaches in the wild to be eaten alive by something else?

    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      The fate of us all is to die, so should we all be killing as much as possible?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  65. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seriously though, Mythbusters just plain old has a policy of not testing any religious myths. Saw it mentioned in their forums.

  66. QED by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

    QED... They'll wear suites made of live roaches!?

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  67. The real question is by geekoid · · Score: 1, Funny

    Will they blend?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  68. Hypocrisy by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Strange how little cats and dogs are protected on TV, but our little six-legged friends, well 200 can merrily risk their little lives in the name of pseudoscience television.

    Every movie that reads "no animals were harmed in the making of this film" had 3 catered meals a day spread out on tables filled with the cooked remains of dead animals.

    I love to eat such dead cooked animals myself, but such claims are just hypocrisy.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Hypocrisy by hawk · · Score: 1

      Belligerent carnivore that I am, even I would have to draw the line at live cooked animals.

      (they bite back!)

      hawk

  69. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they'd run into problems with the 'crucify a rabbi and see if he reanimates' part.

  70. -1 Ignorant by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Neither of your linked articles applies here. Not even close.

    "Sure there will be lots of mutants in the progeny and most of them will probably not be very fit, but if you have big enough numbers this doesn't really matter."

    But the may be fir enough for the new environment. To say 'not be very fit' implies there is some ultimate 'higer' goal to evolution. There is not.

    But seriously, read the articles you link and try to understand them If not for the children, then

    FOR PONY!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  71. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or another religion such as Islam, the other religion Slashdot loves. Oh, wait....

  72. Who cares about proper dosing? by wsanders · · Score: 1

    They'll just expose it to some random amount of radiation, and if that doesn't kill it, they'll just blow it up with a stick of dynamite.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  73. Ants? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Does PETA protect ants' rights too? :)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  74. Not to Mention Dosage Pattern by BlackGriffen · · Score: 1

    Are they going to have the roaches ingest or inhale any radioisotopes? My understanding is that that is a significant part of the problem after a nuclear war.

    1. Re:Not to Mention Dosage Pattern by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Roaches don't inhale - that requires lungs.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:Not to Mention Dosage Pattern by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Just like Former Vice President Al Gore.

  75. You'd feel differently about this... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    ...if your home was infested with cockroaches.

    There's a point in that battle where you seriously consider setting of a small neutron bomb, if only you could find one... OH SHIT, BRB: FBI!

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  76. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Seems mythic enough to me.

    You are mythtaken, it is actually a mythtery

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  77. I've done this by rimcrazy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I use to radiate parts for Motorola back when I worked for the Military Electronics group. We use to use the Gamma cell over at ASU. We put in a cockroach one Friday and came back Monday to check on it. Can't remember if it was the new gamma cell or the old one. The new one was around 20KRads/Min the old one was around 1KR/min. Either way, it was in the chamber for about 3 days or about 4320 mins. Bounded it got between 86Mega Rads or 4.3Mega Rads. It lived. There is little or no water in a cockroach so there is nothing to absorb the radiation. To Gamma radiation, they are immune. To be a correct experiment they would need to expose across a broad range of particles and radiation and not just Gamma.

    --
    "TV, a medium as it is neither rare nor well done." Ernie Kovacs
    1. Re:I've done this by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      holy f'ing crap! you make me want to see how they would do in a neutron or proton field, but I don't work in HEP nor nuke anymore. '

    2. Re:I've done this by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Um, what did you do with the roach afterwards? I think I've seen its descendants in Manhattan. Some of them could take your head off with a single bite...

  78. Nuke 'Em High by BigAssRat · · Score: 1

    Nuke 'Em High, it was documented in 1986. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090849/

  79. Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? :D Doesn't meter the subject, the first one is always a joke or a sarcastic tag. Not complaining, just pointing my finger on it! Now regarding the cockroach... WHY IN THIS F****** WORLD THEY WANT TO KNOW IT?

    --
    Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    1. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think it's faster to come up with something funny to say, rather than something profound.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by magnus_1986 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's people like you who are keeping bright females out of many industries. I think it was obvious from your post who the real c*nt is, so i guess I need not point THAT out.

      --
      My last sig was ridiculed
    3. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      I didn't subscribe to Slashdot... someone bought it for me or something. All I know is one day I didn't have it, then one day I did, and I didn't pay for it.

      *shrug*

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    4. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was me, trying to encourage people who post intelligently. As opposed to Mr. "lick mi ballz", for instance.

      -- A fiend

    5. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Dude it's been a long time since have or not having tits had anything to do with someone being male, female or undecided!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    6. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      It's people like you who are keeping bright females out of many industries. I think it was obvious from your post who the real c*nt is, so i guess I need not point THAT out.

      I would think that people who go around saying that they are the proud owner of a beater Toyota Celica lift back would scare people out of any industry, save for perhaps meat packing and lead mining.

      --
      This is my sig.
    7. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stfu & gtfo /b/tard.

    8. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fiend? Dang. All I've got is foes. I'm envious.

    9. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by joto · · Score: 1

      Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny?
      It isn't. If saying "I for one welcome our [subject of article]" is funny, then you have absolutely no sense of humor, at all. It was funny in the original Simpsons episode, and perhaps two or three times after that, but not anymore. For a joke to be actually funny, it must involve some element of surprise. If you've read slashdot for at least a week, you know that certain unfunny attempts at joke-patterns will repeat themselves endlessly, including, among others, this one, "Imagine a Beowulf of [object]", and "In Soviet Russia the [object] [verb]s you!". Since there is no longer any element of surprise involved in these, it's no longer funny.

      More accurately, it can be viewed as a form of ritual communication used by many slahdot-readers to give a sense of community. It's like "Halleluja" used excessively by carismatic christian preachers, weird handshakes among homies, or a random selection of words from a bullshit-bingo card (e.g. proactively, strategy, implementation, leverage)used among middle management. But funny, no.

      Now regarding the cockroach... WHY IN THIS F****** WORLD THEY WANT TO KNOW IT?
      "Myth Busters" is a popular TV show that lives up to it's name. It takes popular myths, such as people saying cockroaches survive radioactivity, or whether tomato juice removes skunk odor, and tests them. Often in a humorous setting, and often by blowing things up in the end, especially if the subject involves explosives. As such, this is just another episode, and therefore not particulary interesting compared to all of the others. I have no idea why the slashdot editors thought this particulary experiment was so interesting as to deserve its own article. Most episodes of "Myth Busters" consists of three or four such experiments.
    10. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by dh5fbr · · Score: 1

      I hope you mean *ALWAYS* as in all ways, Otherwise you woul dbe defuted by this stories first post Evidence of Steganography in Real Criminal Cases

    11. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's even faster to just fill in a non-funny template like "I for one welcome our new $(ADJECTIVE) $(NOUN) overlords".

    12. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of the saddest threads I've seen on Slashdot.

    13. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Did that take some time for you to post?

      Those who laugh last, didn't get the joke.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    14. Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? by Elbowgeek · · Score: 1
      Dude, are you the one who comes up with all of those lolcats texts?

      As for why the first post always can has funny, I guess it's because it's good to kick things off with a bit of humour before the discussion descends into intellectual one-upmanship by the usual bunch of sexually-frustrated *nix and Mac geeks.

      Cheers

      --
      Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
  80. Roast Roach by mindwanderer · · Score: 1

    Why is it that the smaller an animal is, the more acceptable it is to kill it in a gruesome fashion? My guess is the more human-like the expression of agony is, the easier it is for us to empathize. Does this mean that we intrinsically care nothing about other species' suffering unless they draw parallels to our own? I try to rationalize that a roach slowly dying from radiation exposure probably hurts as much as it would most any other living creature, but that still does little to dissuade me from gleefully grinding one of the filthy buggers with the sole of my boot.

    --
    :wq
    1. Re:Roast Roach by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      Could it be because the smaller the animal the less developed the nervous system?
      Or that in many instances, the smaller the animal the more of them there are?

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    2. Re:Roast Roach by Palefrei · · Score: 0


      Exactly.

      I don't hunt/shoot/kill/eat the cute ones.

      I love my dog, Einstein, and could never imagine hurting his furry little face.

      But, if in some mystical transmogrification he was magically a beagle sized cockroach in the AM, I'd get my galoshes on and stomp him.

    3. Re:Roast Roach by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The farther something is away from your person experience, the less someone relates to it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Roast Roach by Frostalicious · · Score: 1

      Why is it that the smaller an animal is, the more acceptable it is to kill it in a gruesome fashion?

      I don't think it is size that matters, but general level of social interaction. I mean the worst part about something dying is the grief experienced by those left behind. This is strong for humans, some birds, dogs, cats, but I don't really think those cockroaches give a crap about each other.

    5. Re:Roast Roach by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Why is it that the smaller an animal is, the more acceptable it is to kill it in a gruesome fashion?"

      You are just so right! That surely explains why no one would make steaks out of a calf while we have so many hamsters starring snuff movies.

  81. Re:Sorry... Washington? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Our non-irradiated overlord are there... and elsewhere

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  82. this just in by srhoades · · Score: 1

    In an unrelated story in after hours trading SC Johnson stock, the makers of Raid Bug Spray, has surged to a new 52 week high. Market analyists are unable to explain the increase in stock price. An SC Johnson spokesman has stated they have just received a large order of the popular bug spray to be shipped to an undisclosed address in San Francisco.

  83. Hmph. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, I think that's morally indefensible.

    Who are you saving? What are you actually doing? You're just torturing some slob for dated information that's not going to help anyone. And torture is a crappy way of getting accurate information anyhow...Witness all the people who "confessed" to witchcraft during the inquisition, and the witch trials.

    Traditional intelligence gathering methods were sufficient to get the information that would have stopped 9/11, if the methods of analysis were good enough. Now, they're gathering so much more information, and I've seen no proof that their methods of analysis have improved by anything even resembling a similar amount...Basically, they're drowning themselves in un-analyzed crap information, while giving concrete examples to the people who think that we're corrupt torturers, that we are in fact, corrupt torturers, and screwing the people at home who're finding it hard to think we really are the good guys when we're torturing POWs, and yes, if we're "at war" with terror, then people we capture in the war, are POWs...That's what it means.

    In short, it's stupid, it's pointless, and it's immoral. We may be forgiven for taking the moral low road for an end like saving a million people, but when you take the moral low road for a worthless end, you should expect to be strung up by your nuts for it. Make no mistake; you sacrifice a human life because of something you think is right, that's still murder...If enough other people think you were right to do so, society may forgive you. Otherwise, they may put your ass in the electric chair.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Hmph. by mi · · Score: 1

      Who are you saving? What are you actually doing? You're just torturing some slob for dated information that's not going to help anyone.

      Well, the presumption was, the extracted information would save lives. The presumption itself is not being discussed here.

      But even those, who accept it, seem to find the waterboarding unacceptable — contrary to the post, to which I was replying.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Hmph. by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think that's morally indefensible.

      Who are you saving? What are you actually doing? You're just torturing some slob for dated information that's not going to help anyone. And torture is a crappy way of getting accurate information anyhow.

      The only interrogation technique that the US has used that could qualify as torture is water-boarding. And I would generally agree that its use is unacceptable. However using such techniques on "high level detainees" such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, I have no problem with. There are other things which would be called torture which I would say should NEVER be done, but water-boarding KSM seems completely justified. Just as people can give up the right to live by their actions, which KSM has also done, people can give up their rights by their actions to not face extremely unpleasant interrogation techniques to get them to share more information about their crimes. As for it not being effective at getting reliable information, it's just not true. Especially in the case of KSM. The information from him has almost certainly saved many lives around the world.

      http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/
    3. Re:Hmph. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only interrogation technique that the US has used that could qualify as torture is water-boarding.

      Actually, the US military has tortured people who were known to be innocent to death because they sounded funny when they screamed (google Bagram and Dilawar).

      There are number of problems with torture. One problem is that there is a strong tendency to use torture to establish guilt. This has resusulted in hundreds of innocent people being tortured by the US government (some of them even to death - as noted above). Basically, the USA would pay people in the Middle East to kidnap each other and then torture the people who had been kidnapped in the hopes that some of them were guilty of something.

      There are also aesthetic problems with torture. First, it validates the terrorists. It says to the terrorists "We don't torture drug dealers or child molestors or rapists or murderers or even war criminals but you have been so effective at scaring us that you've made us compromise one of the most basic principles we believe in." I would much rather have had the US government be like "Yeah, you guys are just run of the mill losers. We can deal with you with our standard criminal justice system." Second, torture underminds the USA's moral authority. The USA looks like total hypocrites claiming that they removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a bad man who tortured people when the USA frequently uses torture itself.

      It might be possible to overlook the aesthetic problems with torture if torture was the only way to prevent terrorism. But it's not. In fact, falling back on torture shows a rather pathitic lack of creativity on the part of the USA. Suppose, for example, that you want to know who Khalid Sheikh Mohammed associates with. Sure, you could capture him and torture him and maybe he'll give up a few real guys along with some random innocent guys. Or, you could let him stay free but keep him under the most aggressive surveilence you can manage (which, for the USA with a budget of hundreds of billions would be quite substantial) and then you could know for certain who he associates with.

      The bottom line, though, is that the human rights groups are a whole lot more concerned about the innocent people tortured (occasionally to death) by the USA than they are about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

    4. Re:Hmph. by Cally · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can really see the American legal system prosecuting Dubya, winning, and him getting the electric chair. Very likely. hu-huh.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    5. Re:Hmph. by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Contrary to your blanket statement about "the US military", the individuals responsible for the murders of Bagram and Dilawar are being court-martialed by the US military, and were in the process of being court-martialed well before news of the incident got out and it started being used by people like you as a blanket attack on the US military.

    6. Re:Hmph. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Contrary to your blanket statement about "the US military", the individuals directly responsible for the murders of Bagram and Dilawar are being court-martialed by the US military Fixed that for ya.
      Well, except for the part where you think "Bagram" is a person.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:Hmph. by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the US military has tortured people who were known to be innocent to death because they sounded funny when they screamed (google Bagram and Dilawar).

      I googled this. The accurate statement would be that the US military learned of criminal manslaughter perpetrated by some of its soldiers, and convicted and punished the perpetrators.

      One problem is that there is a strong tendency to use torture to establish guilt. This has resusulted in hundreds of innocent people being tortured by the US government (some of them even to death - as noted above). Basically, the USA would pay people in the Middle East to kidnap each other and then torture the people who had been kidnapped in the hopes that some of them were guilty of something.

      The evidence opposes this contention. The only people the CIA tortured are the handful of the 13-16 IIRC high-level Al Qeada who didn't submit to lessor interrogation techniques. As I already said, the only technique that could be called torture used by the CIA is waterboarding, and this does not lead to death or any other physical harm. They followed leads from the information obtained, and in no cases used this information as the sole determinant of guilt. In fact, in the military tribunals at Guantanamo, this information is inadmissible, and presumably officially denied by the CIA. The evidence presented for conviction is obtained from subsequently obtained evidence. In the case of KSM, the judge was very vigilant about allegations of torture, and verified repeatedly with KSM that he was not saying anything under threat of torture, etc.

      Second, torture underminds the USA's moral authority. The USA looks like total hypocrites claiming that they removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a bad man who tortured people when the USA frequently uses torture itself.

      There is some truth in these statements, but the problem with them is that by world standards, certainly by Saddam's standards, water-boarding isn't torture, it's just a tough interrogation technique. If we were pulling out teeth and drilling into legs, and cutting off fingers, leaving them dead, we would absolutely be on the level of Saddam and Al Qaeda. Playing on someone's fears without inflicting sever physical pain is a much different thing. It may not be as "aesthetic" as being a Quaker, but it is no less "aesthetic" than any forceful military action. While I can't deny that it has adversely affected Europe's opinion of us, my philosophy, and obviously Bush's philosophy, has always been that the question of the right thing to do should be independent of the question of anyone else's opinion of you for doing it. Furthermore, like what happened with Abu Ghraib, if it is the world opinion that is what's important, then the people in the media and general citizenry who brought it to global attention and kept it there, and made it the very face of the US military, are every bit as guilty of undermining that as the people who were guilty of the actual isolated crimes.

      It might be possible to overlook the aesthetic problems with torture if torture was the only way to prevent terrorism. But it's not. In fact, falling back on torture shows a rather pathitic lack of creativity on the part of the USA. Suppose, for example, that you want to know who Khalid Sheikh Mohammed associates with. Sure, you could capture him and torture him and maybe he'll give up a few real guys along with some random innocent guys. Or, you could let him stay free but keep him under the most aggressive surveilence you can manage (which, for the USA with a budget of hundreds of billions would be quite substantial) and then you could know for certain who he associates with.

      I think people must to confuse the term "superpower" with the term "superhero". The idea of letting KSM go after we finally caught him, and the idea that we could track him and find out his secrets by doing so, are,

  84. Well then let's bury our heads in the sand and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pretend we're stupid. It's worked before (lol, like gasoline on a fire)...

    Well, when you understand the term "A Tragedy of Comedies" give me a ring.

    (btw, her clit is still showing and you don't have to sneak when stealing what is yours...lol... You both have been on the stage in front of billions the whole time, everyone knows... lol. Doesn't matter if you want to be reminded of that or not, lol.. come on people... lol...lol... some semblence of adulthood, please. LOL, too funny)

  85. Not all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GO reread what he Weisman wrote, he didn't say all roaches he said just the roaches in colder cities. Kinda makes sense since cockroaches like warmer temps.

  86. Mod parent up by riker1384 · · Score: 1

    Insightful.

  87. Manners (Re:Deadly virus?) by mi · · Score: 1

    You're possibly the only post here on slashdot to ever get me actually angry. You must be a moron.

    Do deal with your anger issues and learn to debate politely... Not dismissing other people due to their backgrounds (such as "rednecks") would help you too.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Manners (Re:Deadly virus?) by Bane1998 · · Score: 1

      Anger versus Anger Issues:

      'Anger' happens, and can be healthy to express.
      'Anger Issues' mean you cannot control your anger, and you become unable to debate with reason.

      I like to think I was angry, yet still presented valid points. If I want to call you a redneck, you can ignore it or not, or add that to the debate even if you want, but to say being angry invalidates the points is hardly a response.

  88. Sorry... by raehl · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, if you leave sodium chloride under a red-orange lamp overnight, it'll emit gamma radiation for the next 24 hours.

  89. Average species intelligence by Chmcginn · · Score: 0

    Generally, I won't kill (or assist in killing) anything smarter than a dog, unless necessary to protect my (or my wife's) life.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  90. Why Hate Roaches? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, try sipping one down in your morning coffee sometime.
    Nuke 'em all, I say!

    ahimsa ^_^

  91. The '24' effect by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    It's all Jack Bauer's fault, I tell you.

    Apparently people have these ideas in there head:

    1.)Torturing people who are willing to suicide-bomb themselves is going to provide truthful info

    2.)The US routinuely catches 1 terrorist from a cell while having no info on the other members

    3.) The rest of the cell doesn't change their plans if one member is captured

    And, 4.) Finding out 'where teh boom is hidin' will save 100 brazilian lives

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  92. are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i guess it is "real science" in that it's "really bad science". even slashdotters who've never published a thing in their lives can poke holes in the mythbusters's experiment formulation, execution, and conclusions. they trick plenty of people (those who don't understand the scientific process). the fact of the matter is that the mythbusters perform science at the elementary/middle school levels and i wouldn't trust their conclusions over that of a high school science student.

  93. simple by yoprst · · Score: 1

    They won't go there themselves, they'll hire a cockroach crew to film the test.

  94. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 3, Funny

    That seems a little unscientific. I'm going to wait for the results of properly peer-reviewed experiment data before I make a judgement on that one.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  95. Not to mention, by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

    what the twinkies will mutate into.

  96. except by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Cockroachs can actually run.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  97. Ha. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whereas you, noble and virtuous, will refuse. You will tell your pregnant wife, and your three kids, "Okay, we're all going to die so that the people outside can go on living their corrupt and venal lives like we don't exist."

    I haven't been in that situation, so I'm not quite sure what I'd do. It'll depend on a lot of things. How long do I stay in quarantine if there is no food? How long if no water? No vague attempt at medical aid from the outside? No idea.

    But you apparently know...Unlike all the "trample your fellow man" sheep of the world, you'd never act in anything but a selfless manner.

    Or you're talking out of your ass. I've seen a lot of people talk a big line, and the bigger the line, the faster they crack when the shit hits the fan.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Ha. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Okay, we're all going to die so that the people outside can go on living their corrupt and venal lives like we don't exist."

      Reading your example, it looks like "we" are going to die either ways. Stay in and die. Go out, die with everyone else.
      In that case, it does not make sense to go out.

      If going out will save "we", then it means that the infection or whatever is curable or at least controllable. In that case I will go out.

  98. sure by yoprst · · Score: 1

    Virus isn't life. Upgrade your argument to bacteria.
    The preciousness of life is inversely proportional to genetical distance between you and the (possible) victim. Having common kids counts as very short genetic distance (although technically it's not short at all, unless..uhm, let's not talk about that)

  99. FYI re. SC Johnson by paulthomas · · Score: 1

    As they say: "SC Johnson, a family company." There is no public market for the company's stock -- it is all privately held. I know you were making a joke, but I thought some might find this interesting given the size and success of the company.

    1. Re:FYI re. SC Johnson by srhoades · · Score: 1

      Well I feel sheepish. Although that is probably the most informative post I have read in a while. If you don't get modded for it you have props from me.

  100. I am shocked and apalled! by Vexorian · · Score: 1

    Who dared call Mythbusters pseudo science? Do you really want them to be in the same level as Intelligent design and paranormal investigators? What's wrong with you people?!

    I demand for this story to get a new tag: !pseudoscience

    --

    Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
  101. Just so you know by geekoid · · Score: 1

    It has been PROVEN that torture is not nearly as effected as befriending.

    Waterboarding is very dangerous, even when done by experts, and torture is harmful to the US reputation which causes MORE terrorism.

    "Purely mental?" No, it leaves no physical marks AFTER the toture, but it is physical.

    I suggest you try it.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Just so you know by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      It has been PROVEN that torture is not nearly as effected as befriending.
      Terrorists don't want to be your friend.
      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  102. It's actually very simple by ThanatosMinor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Roaches, in fact all insects, are very resistant to short doses of radiation. The reason behind this is that radiation does the most damage to cells when they're dividing. It just so happens that roaches molt about once a week, which is a single cell division. If you aren't radiating the roach when this is happening, your radiation will mostly fall on deaf ears.

    However, after a nuclear blast, the fallout would be a source of constant radiation and would probably kill any roaches that had to live in it for a week or two.

  103. Renoir and Proust by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

    "Ah, a transport vehicle! I order it to take us back to Alpha Complex."
    "Good thinking. It picks you up with its mandibles-- er, I mean, its cargo grapples--"

  104. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by Verteiron · · Score: 1

    Then you're watching the wrong show. You want Penn and Teller's "Bullshit!" for that.

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
  105. Re:crucify a rabbit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  106. R. Daneel? Is that you buddy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Elijah! Remember me?

  107. Novel means of killing cock roaches by Peaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A bit offtopic, but I recently discovered that soapy water kills cock roaches faster than all commercial poisons I tried!

    Try it, its pretty amazing.

    1. Re:Novel means of killing cock roaches by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      I recently discovered that soapy water kills cock roaches faster than all commercial poisons I tried!
      Do you know if this works for crabs, too?
      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    2. Re:Novel means of killing cock roaches by Yehooti · · Score: 1

      Back in the good ole days, CCl4 (Carbon Tetra-Chloride) was readily available and killed everything you wanted gone. Termites, cockroaches, scorpions, spiders, you name it. If you had an idea where they might be hiding, you simply poured some of that stuff into that area and you'd never see them again. Why can't I find that stuff anymore?

    3. Re:Novel means of killing cock roaches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit offtopic, but I recently discovered that soapy water kills cock roaches faster than all commercial poisons I tried!

      Try it, its pretty amazing.


      Orange Pro 409, the kind with the citrus extract which supposedly makes it a better cleaner, is a surprisingly effective pesticide. It easily wipes off of most surfaces and it kills just about every pest - ants, spiders, flies in mid-flight, evangelists ringing the doorbell way too early Saturday morning...umm...just guessing about that last one...

      (and the captcha is "beetle"...time to play the lottery...)

      - T

    4. Re:Novel means of killing cock roaches by Chapter80 · · Score: 1
      For crabs, you should really get a cream from your doctor or OB/GYN.

      (see, I got your joke.)

    5. Re:Novel means of killing cock roaches by TheOrquithVagrant · · Score: 1

      Because with a bit more time, it will kill YOU as well. It's quite carcinogenous.

  108. Okay, 'Outbreak' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (I'm never THAT asleep)

  109. Last year's joke: by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking roaches on this motherfucking plane!

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  110. Redundant by PPH · · Score: 1
    No need to conduct an experiment with cockroaches. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is overrun with government contractors.

    QED.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Redundant by Bob+A+Trollmuncher · · Score: 1

      what needs to be done is testing on lawyers, preferably patent laywers, but your typical scumbag lawyer would do for a start, it's not like there's a shortage of them or anything.

      --
      come to the dark side, we have penguins.
  111. Giant Roach Teachers by nsaspook · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember the name of a PBS ecology show during the 70's that taught by giant roaches. It shows the destruction of humans because of pollution and the rise of the roach

    --
    In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
  112. easy to kill roaches. by luther349 · · Score: 0

    raoches die rather easly they go squish. problem is there numbers 1 roach normaly means 10,000 more in your house. they also hide in walls in sewers or any dark cool place they can find. wile its true threre immune to short term radition at least all the forms that where tested on them i dont think they would servive long term. they can servive on very little food and water but what will they eat if its all radioactiv.

  113. I can testify by eggman9713 · · Score: 0

    I happen to live about 14 miles from the southern border of the Hanford site and I can testify to the amount of radiation. I have lived here my entire life, and I now have a nice healthy glow from drinking the water which comes from the nearby Columbia River.

  114. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  115. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by Dash+Hash · · Score: 3, Informative

    They do not limit it to just religious myths, but any "oogie-boogie" myths (in Adam's own words).

    They've done a few in the past (such as the "pyramids of power" myth [or something along that name]) and on that show, Adam specifically said that he hoped that they would not have to do any more "oogie-boogie" myths. It was later explained to be anything along the lines of bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, psychics, astrology, aliens, et cetra.

    Really, they limit themselves to things that are truly testable; they avoid just about anything where there is no real ability to lay claims along one line or the other without getting into otherwise supernatural beliefs.

    --
    Calling a sword by a pretty name is no more than adding perfume to poison.
  116. Some fun comments in the article... by Dash+Hash · · Score: 1

    There are some rather interesting comments in TFA.

    "People are just scared when they hear radiation," Byron said. "Too many zombie movies."

    Not necessarily the first thing I think of when I hear "radiation"...

    "They're all laboratory-grade. Farm fresh," Imahara said.

    I realize why they need specially-farmed roaches, but honestly, that line cracks me up.

    All the bugs will go back to San Francisco. But instead of flying, a Mythbusters employee is having to drive the bugs back.

    I wonder if the driver will have any difficulties getting a hotel, or if they intend to do it in one shot (~16-18 hours for a drive, I think).

    Airlines, it seems, don't like cockroaches on a plane.

    "Um, excuse me. My olives seem to be moving."

    Worst news of all:

    The episode should air in about four months.

    Oh deuteronomy... It's going to be one long wait. Oh well.

    --
    Calling a sword by a pretty name is no more than adding perfume to poison.
    1. Re:Some fun comments in the article... by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure if something really big happens (like they all mutate into giant cockroaches), we'll hear about it before the episode airs :P

  117. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to break the bad news to you... This has been done in several forms... Richard Dawkins, The Movie Domga, and your want some serious reading try Christopher Hitchens

  118. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by Agripa · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do I believe in The Bible? Hell! I've seen one!

  119. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that Catholics will not survive nuclear radiation. . . Assuming that they are not tucked away in the Pope-Mobile.

  120. Well... There's your problem! by Ars+Dilbert · · Score: 1

    Well... There's your problem!

  121. I know the guy that this story happened to! srsly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ( about 10 yrs ago my local Chinese take away was done by environmental health for serving it)

    http://www.snopes.com/horrors/food/chinese.asp
    You are an ignorant loser. Maybe you can have Pop Rocks and Pepsi for dessert.

  122. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by houghi · · Score: 1

    So how about Scientology then?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  123. Cockroaches have left Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Some years ago virtually all Russian cities have been abandoned by cockroaches. The little critters are simply not here anymore. No one knows why they left. Some say that modern insecticides are way too powerful even for cockroaches to resist. Some say cockroaches do not tolerate cellular radiation. The most pessimistic believe that cockroaches feel some impending disaster and flee the doomed ship.

  124. Then we get to watch cockroachman in IMAX 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then we get to watch cockroachman in IMAX 3D

  125. Evolution by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't evolution have something to do with this, too? I don't know anything about the reproductive duration of cockroaches, but I'm thinking that they do so at a pretty quick rate with a high yield.

    If there were some sort of radioactivity, and if it were not immediately lethal, I'm thinking that the odds are that they'd produce an immune strain in relativly little time. In fact, I would guess that many quick-reproducing creatures would behave this way in much the same way that bacteria do.

    --
    -David
  126. I don't think this is the same effect (cerenkov) by aepervius · · Score: 1

    If I recall correctly, Cerenkov radiation is because the speed of the electron is quicker than photon speed in water. Thus the blue glow. In crystal this is due to gaps, and electron being quicker to higher orbitals and slowly decaying. Not the same reason/effect. PS: wanna freak out a nuclear physicist ? Put some bluish metal in a water with a blue light source, then leave it exposed somewhere....

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  127. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by Rip!ey · · Score: 3, Informative

    Umm, until there's scientific backing to the claim, any "popular knowledge" is and remains a myth. Of course, there's nothing particularly scientific about the mythbusters. Given their propensity for "blowing shit up", one could be forgiven for thinking that they're just angling for an excuse to nuke something.
  128. The American Human Association won't be happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the trivia section of The Shawshank Redemption:

    "The American Humane Association monitored the filming of scenes involving Brooks' crow. During the scene where he fed it a maggot, the AHA objected on the grounds that it was cruel to the maggot, and required that they use a maggot that had died from natural causes. One was found, and the scene was filmed."

  129. There is some research by armb · · Score: 1

    I knew someone who's PhD involved irradiating cockroaches. It wasn't research on their survival as such - the "liquidize the irradiated cockroaches to extract the DNA for testing" stage took care of that - but it did involve "wind the source out of the lead tube by remote control from behind the shield because it isn't something you would want to expose yourself to".

    --
    rant
  130. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    If Mythbusters covered the same sort of territory as Bullshit it would be a lot more watchable.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  131. 2 Comments. by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    1, I love this show, no really I do.

    2, Fuck cockroaches, little bastards! Even if they are vunerable to radiation your common everyday products to kill them in the home are doing less and less, the ones in my apartment sometimes walk THROUGH THE INSIDE OF THE MICROWAVE while it's ON........ wtf?
    I have a photo of them nesting INSIDE the damned 'ultrasonic bug repeller' (set to roach mode, no less*)
    I hate them, I hope Jamie and Adam find something seriously toxic to kill the bastards

    * yes, I know they are a 'sham' but when you're desperate you'll try anything, I've also tried sticky traps, bug 'bait', the powders, surface sprays and god knows what else what.

  132. First post funny not profound? Myth BUSTED! by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, is this true?

    *thinks hard for something profound to say about a TV comedy show irradiating cockroaches*

    Got it!

    'In Soviet Russia, Cockroaches irradiate YOU!, oh wait...

  133. Controlled Setting ...... *snicker* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mythbusters' idea of a controlled setting is making sure Kari gets enough screen-time to keep guys watching for a full-hour.

  134. Gotta do it... by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, cockroaches irradiate YOU!

  135. Electrons Only by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    If we had a nuclear free zone, then all we would have is a whole shitload of electrons floating around. My guess is that the voltage differential this caused would most certainly break through the insulation and result in one hell of a lightning bolt. If big enough, it would have the same effects of a nuclear explosion anyway.

    Now, if they mean "Nuclear weapon free zone" or "nuclear modification technology free zone" they might make sense.

  136. Re:I know the guy that this story happened to! srs by stewwy · · Score: 1

    It's probably happened to others ..but It DID happen to me it is not an urban myth or any such bullsh*t it was in wallasey in merseyside and the chinese was in the local paper, we used to go in afterwards and order alsation curry and chips used to annoy the new owners no end

  137. Re:I know the guy that this story happened to! srs by stewwy · · Score: 1

    p.s you note I didn't post AC

  138. What is a myth by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1
    You mention usage 5 in whatever dictionary, but the "unproved or false story" meaning is the most recent. The original meaning of myth was anthropological. It is a story that "resonates" with the culture ("informs the ethics and morals of a people" according to one description - usage 1 in the Gnome dictionary applet is close enough). Spiderman, Starwars, are modern mythic stories, comparable to the ancient Greek myths with their own gods and heroes. But historical incidents can become myth also. George Washington crossing the Delaware, the Winter at Valley Forge are mythic tales in the US - somewhat stylized in the telling as are all myths. "Myths of National Origin" as the anthropologists would say.

    Most science textbooks have a mythic chapter concerning the Origin of Life in the Primordial Soup. This does not mean the story is false - just that the telling has taken on the stylized reverent tones of myth: "Myths of Cosmic Origin". In the same way, the Cockroach Myth is important because of what it implies about our sense of vulnerability and cosmic justice in the event of nuclear war. It will live on even if shown to be false in a literal sense. Spiderman doesn't have to be a historical fact to inform our ethics and morals.

    Equating myth with falsehood is a modern trend. Many are uncomfortable with myths that dare to intrude on the "real world" by turning out to be historically or literally true.

  139. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    Really, they limit themselves to things that are truly testable

    They could go down to a morgue and use time-lapse photography to see how many people come back to life after being dead for three days.

  140. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  141. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by sjames · · Score: 1

    Seriously though, Mythbusters just plain old has a policy of not testing any religious myths. Saw it mentioned in their forums.

    And who can blame them. It's one thing to get shocked while peeing on an electric fence, shot with a penny, or buried alive. Having to listen to a bunch of people who believe they've slighted their particular brand of religion would simply be intolerable.

  142. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by FlyByPC · · Score: 1

    Naah. Penn and Teller don't have Kari!

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
  143. Well now that the Stones have retired... by Elbowgeek · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can spare Keef so we can see how he'd fare against newkewlar attack. I'm guessing it would take about ten times the radiation poisoning to do him in, and even then he'd probably consider it a new way to get high. I mean, he snorted his own dad for Chrissakes!

    --
    Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
  144. Cockroaches? by damista · · Score: 1

    Nah I don't think cockies will survive a nuclear armageddon. Everybody knows that there's only one being that will survive a nuclear war: Lemmy from Motörhead! :)

    And maybe some Lawyers of course...

  145. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by Ours · · Score: 1

    Yeah, they use pseudo-scientific apparatus, mythbusters could test those.

    --
    "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
  146. Honest Anwser by pbaer · · Score: 1

    It depends on who is being killed and who is being saved. My dog for 100M random people? Probably. My best friend for 100M random people? No way in hell. My best friend for 100M of the most talented, kindest people? Yes. Kill 1M people whom I've never met, or don't care about to save 100M? Absolutely.

    --
    There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.