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."

55 of 573 comments (clear)

  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
  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 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.

    4. 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!

  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 elrous0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      But only the EVIL ones

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. 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.
    7. 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. -=-=-=-=-
    8. 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.

    9. 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.
  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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.
  5. 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 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?

  6. 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 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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 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.
  17. Re:Is it a MYTH??? by burtosis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Still waiting for the episode on Catholicism.

  18. 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 bmerlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  19. 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.

  20. 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 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.

  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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.