Slashdot Mirror


Nuked Coral Reef Bounces Back

sm62704 writes "I found this New Scientist article interesting, as I was actually alive (albeit very small) when Bikini Atoll was H-bombed. The article says that the reason the reefs are now flourishing is because they are mostly undisturbed by humans, who are afraid of the radiation. Background levels there are now 'similar to that at any Australian city,' while nearby islands haven't been so lucky.'When I put the Geiger counter near a coconut, which accumulates radioactive material from the soil, it went berserk,' says Maria Beger of the University of Queensland in Australia."

332 comments

  1. vacation by ILuvRamen · · Score: 2, Funny

    sounds like a great place to visit. I can see the ad now..."Come see the beautiful, undisturbed coral reefs. Just don't go near the irradiated coconuts!"

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:vacation by Knutsi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Would be interesting to look at how long expected development time for the cancers you could get from these coconuts would be. Maybe for people over 65-70, the food is perfectly safe to eat! (:

    2. Re:vacation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Clearly this reef is laughing at our incompetence. We need to nuke it again to show it who's boss. Otherwise the terrorists have won.

    3. Re:vacation by mh1997 · · Score: 5, Funny

      When I put the Geiger counter near a coconut, which accumulates radioactive material from the soil, it went berserk,
      Seeing a coconut go berserk because a giger counter was near it would scare the crap out of me. No wonder nobody wants to go there. Would the coconuts act in a calm and mature manner if a tourist didn't bring a geiger counter?
    4. Re:vacation by frisket · · Score: 4, Funny
      Antecedent Object references the direct object (Geiger counter), not the indirect (coconut).

      A Giger counter presumably counts paintings.

    5. Re:vacation by mh1997 · · Score: 1

      Antecedent Object references the direct object (Geiger counter), not the indirect (coconut).
      Knowing and following the rules ruins the joke.

      The "giger counter/painting" reference was brilliant. I wish I could give you mod points.

    6. Re:vacation by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe for people over 65-70, the food is perfectly safe to eat! (:

      Especially if they smoke cigarettes. Ever notice that whenever someone does of lung cancer, cigarettes are always to blame whether they smoke or not, even if they worked at the Hanford Nuclear Facility?

      I can remember one winter when I was a kid and they had open air nuclear tests in Nevada. A couple of days later we had a thindersnowstorm, and they said the snow was radioactive and you shouldn't let your kids play in it. Of course we did.

      You young people only have terrorists to worry about, we had the USSR with thousands of atom bombs aimed at us.

      The world is a much safer place than it was when I was a kid.

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    7. Re:vacation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would be interesting to look at how long expected development time for the cancers you could get from these coconuts would be. Maybe for people over 65-70, the food is perfectly safe to eat! (: It would solve the Social Security problem.
    8. Re:vacation by MikeyTheK · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ha. Ha. Here's the deal on Bikini: 1) You can't live there. You can visit on a dive excursion. Everything is brought with you. There are bunks in the buildings, but that's all 2) The radiation is in the form of cesium, which is extremely water soluble. As a result, it is present above the waterline in the sand and soil (but not at the surface, as rainwater constantly washes it away). In addition, since cesium is SO soluble, all traces away from the shore are long gone. So it's safe to dive the wrecks, which are spectacular. 3) Previous attempts to get the cesium to bond to other elements, e.g. iodine, did not succeed as planned, and the vegetation continues to suck it up. 4) In 1946 there were around 150 residents that were relocated to Kili Island and to Ejit, so they'd like to get home some time, too. 5) If you ever get the chance, cough up the cash, learn how to dive, and GO. Most of the wrecks are deep, but the water in the lagoon is as clear as you are going to see, and the wrecks are pristine. I've done diving at a military-controlled atoll, where there is very little traffic, fewer tourists, and an active SCUBA community. It may be the best diving I have ever done.

      --
      Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
      Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
    9. Re:vacation by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seeing a coconut go berserk because a giger counter was near it would scare the crap out of me. No wonder nobody wants to go there. Would the coconuts act in a calm and mature manner if a tourist didn't bring a geiger counter? I think the OP's problem was he used an HR Giger counter. That's been known to have some unpleasant effects.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    10. Re:vacation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a lovely bunch of radioactive

    11. Re:vacation by Toonol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The world is a much safer place than it was when I was a kid.

      I try to get this point across to people all the time and they think I'm either crazy or naive. In all sorts of ways, the world is better now than in the past. Sure, not everything is, but the majority of items that impact individuals is immensely better. Health, Crime, War... all much better. Terrorism is petty compared to cold war nuclear brinkmanship.

    12. Re:vacation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antecedent Object references the direct object (Geiger counter), not the indirect (coconut).[citation needed]

    13. Re:vacation by I+Like+Pudding · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Giger is a unit of grotesquery equal to three ISO standard Hieronymous Boschs.

    14. Re:vacation by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Polio's gone, playgrounds are MUCH safer, and should a seven year old kids kid break both his arms falling off the swingset like I did, they don't have to knock him out with ether like they did me. Cars have seat belts and air bags. In fact, there isn't a single thing I can think of that makes the world more dangerous now than in the past.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    15. Re:vacation by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      Prions incubated in industrial-scale cattle operations?

    16. Re:vacation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coconuts hate Klingons too.

    17. Re:vacation by mattOzan · · Score: 1

      I remember the last time my Geiger counter went berserk. Let's just say we're not welcome back to the Vatican City Coconuts-R-Us Stand...

    18. Re:vacation by Gregb05 · · Score: 1

      HIV? Or do we not count things that disproportionately effect minorities?

      --
      --
    19. Re:vacation by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      IINM you're talking about a few hundred deaths worldwide this century, right? Meanwhile half a million people die of cancer every year alone, and the per-capita cancer rates have been dropping for decades.

      One danger we didn't have in the '70s (oh, what a great decade to be a twentysomething nerd!) was HIV. Coupling the lack of any incurable STD with cheap and easy birth control made it so even nerds could get laid. But even still, more Americans die of heart disease than numbers of the entire worldwide population who die of AIDS.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    20. Re:vacation by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since 2000 the annual numbers of AIDS diagnoses have been relatively constant, with an estimated 37,852 in 2006. That's people DIAGNOSED, not deaths.

      Some 43,443 people were killed on the highways in 2005.

      Meanwhile, 559,312 people who died from cancer. Cancer is only the second biggest killer, heart disease kills more people of ALL races. More black people die of cancer than all races combined die of AIDS.

      HIV is comparitively a very minor threat, even to minorities, compared to other dangers. If you're talking about dangers to minorities you should be talking about incarceration, as a disproportionate number of our prisoners (more per capita than any other country) are minorities.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    21. Re:vacation by philspear · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, even if they're not radioactive, coconuts are high in cholesterol.

      For what it's worth, that didn't seem to be hurting pacific island groups whose diets were up to 60% coconuts (http://coconutdiet.com/cholesterol.htm), but it might still be a bad idea for western senior citizen tourists who might already have heart problems.

    22. Re:vacation by glsunder · · Score: 1

      Coconuts aren't animals. While they're high in saturated fat, they don't have cholesterol.

    23. Re:vacation by instarx · · Score: 1

      Polio's gone, playgrounds are MUCH safer, and should a seven year old kids kid break both his arms falling off the swingset like I did, they don't have to knock him out with ether like they did me. Cars have seat belts and air bags. In fact, there isn't a single thing I can think of that makes the world more dangerous now than in the past. AIDS

    24. Re:vacation by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      I showed some statistics here.

      Since 2000 the annual numbers of AIDS diagnoses have been relatively constant, with an estimated 37,852 in 2006 [avert.org]. That's people DIAGNOSED, not deaths.

      Some 43,443 people were killed on the highways in 2005 [usatoday.com].

      Meanwhile, 559,312 people who died from cancer. [avert.org] Cancer is only the second biggest killer, heart disease kills more people of ALL races. More black people die of cancer than all races combined die of AIDS.

      HIV is comparitively a very minor threat, even to minorities, compared to other dangers. If you're talking about dangers to minorities you should be talking about incarceration, as a disproportionate number of our prisoners (more per capita than any other country) are minorities.
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    25. Re:vacation by PawNtheSandman · · Score: 1

      The Mexican border?

    26. Re:vacation by instarx · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, statistics. First, these are diagnosed AIDS cases in the US, and the CDC estimates 25% more people have AIDS but are not diagnosed. Also, your numbers are for AIDS and not HIV+, which is a much higher number. CDC estimates an HIV+ prevalence rate 20 times higher than the diagnosed AIDS rate. Also, your numbers are for the US only, and HIV/AIDS is much more prevelant in the rest of the world, infecting as much as 30% of the populations of some African countries. I add this last point as the original comment was that there is not a single thing that makes the WORLD not as dangerous as the 50s.

      Having said that, I agree with you that overall the US is a much safer place than in the 50s. I don't think I would agree that EVERYTHING is safer, or that the world as a whole is safer.

    27. Re:vacation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try holding a geiger counter near unshelled brazil nuts, just harvested, see what happens....

    28. Re:vacation by martinX · · Score: 1

      Irradiated coconuts - imagine what the Professor could build with those bad boys!

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    29. Re:vacation by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      IIRC the Mexican border has been there for a while now, and people have been sneaking across for a long time.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    30. Re:vacation by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Cancer is only the second biggest killer, heart disease kills more people of ALL races. More black people die of cancer than all races combined die of AIDS. ... and a substantial portion of all three are self-inflicted.
    31. Re:vacation by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      True but iummaterial; I was tasked for not saying AIDS made the world more daangerous and it was suggeste dthat my motication was my alleged hatred of minorities. But AIDS has not made the world more dangerous.

      You are correct, however. All three are largely (although not entirely) self-inflicted.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  2. Oh, it has to be said... by oaklybonn · · Score: 0, Redundant

    When I put the Geiger counter near a coconut, which accumulates radioactive material from the soil, it went berserk. I for one, welcome our Berserk Radioactive Coconut overloards.
    1. Re:Oh, it has to be said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh, it has to be said..."

      No.
      No it doesn't.

    2. Re:Oh, it has to be said... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our redundant radioactive coconut welcoming overlords. I was going to go for the mutated coral angle myself.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  3. its name... by Tastecicles · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...wouldn't happen to be Wickwicky, would it?

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  4. Reality TV? by Barny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would sure as hell make survivor more interesting.

    "oh, and by the way, anything you eat is likely radioactive"

    Maybe make the first episode with reality TV execs on the island....

    Queue Gilligan's Island jokes too.

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
    1. Re:Reality TV? by Archimonde · · Score: 2, Funny

      The trick would be not to tell them that food is radioactive.

      You can always add some more lawyers and politicians to make things more interesting.

      Just drop them off with parachutes, give them one and only instruction ("Survive"), sit back and enjoy the mayh^Hshow;)

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    2. Re:Reality TV? by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine that it would involve randomly walking about like an idiot for hours, followed by extreme depression and the eventual self-amputation of all limbs. And syncope.

    3. Re:Reality TV? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Dude, this is slashdot. Who cares about TV executives? Put RIAA, MPAA, and SCO executives there.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Reality TV? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Don't you read comic books man!
      Radiation only has positive effects on people. It gives them super power and such. Don't put the TV Execs there because then they will get Super Powers (most likely mind control) and they will control us all.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Reality TV? by vbraga · · Score: 1

      So, Godzilla was a former SCO executive?

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    6. Re:Reality TV? by gtomorrow · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, that's only with good ol' AMERICAN radiation do you get Incredible Hulks and Spider-men. With Russian radiation...you get CHERNOBYL! ;^)

    7. Re:Reality TV? by gtomorrow · · Score: 1

      Waitaminute! That WAS American radia...errrr, never mind.

    8. Re:Reality TV? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Actually, SCO was Godzilla!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    9. Re:Reality TV? by OzRoy · · Score: 1

      I love it! This is moderated Insightful, the Slashdot equivalent of "Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter"

    10. Re:Reality TV? by Accipitradea · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can put your jokes in first, I'll put mine in afterwards so they get read first. Get ready to put a joke in 3... 2... 1... go! That's your cue.

    11. Re:Reality TV? by Kelz · · Score: 1

      Imagine an island filled with nothing but Mr. Howell's.

    12. Re:Reality TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Queue Gilligan's Island jokes too. I'm sure they're lining up as we speak.
  5. Nice... by junglee_iitk · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... so when are we going to see Giant Coral reefs draining the Gaea out of it's soul?

  6. Nuke the hypoxic dead zones! by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe we should nuke all the worlds hypoxic dead zones! That would certainly remove the waste accumulated there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

    1. Re:Nuke the hypoxic dead zones! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe we should nuke all the worlds hypoxic dead zones! That would certainly remove the waste accumulated there.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) This is a really bad idea. The only reason this coral reef is doing so well is that we scared Godzilla away from eating it. Logically, the places that have the least life were made that way by very large monsters.
    2. Re:Nuke the hypoxic dead zones! by rikkards · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You are incorrect sir! You can't scare Godzilla, he just did a tactical retreat.

  7. Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Were there lots/little/none ? Oh, come on - that would be one of the most interesting things to tell us. We are all so worried about ''nuclear power fading your genes'' - we now have a 60 year experiment that could tell us about long term effects but they are silent.

    1. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Studying the effects of high background radiation on coconuts is hardly going provide much insight into the effects on, say, human brains.

      ... at least not in my case ...

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    2. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by chuckymonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That is an interesting idea, to see the genetic divergence that radiation may have caused. You call always look at Chernobyl though for a glimpse as to what radiation has done to the wildlife there. As far as I know, it hasn't affected it all that much. There is a higher incidence of fatal mutation, but over all what I have read is that it hasn't had a huge impact. Another site that you could look at is Rocky Flats in Colorado. While us humans that contaminated the hell out of the place are trying to figure out how to warn future generations into the thousands of years about what we did there, the wildlife has reclaimed it as their own. It's a wildlife refuge now and as far as anyone can tell there hasn't been that much impact on the animals there. The problem is though that we're only seeing the first few generations of life since these places have been contaminated. We don't know if it will build up over time and cause radical genetic diversion or if life will adapt to it, it could take a very long time to see the effects of what we have done. Oh, and if you're curious about some of the other things that we have done check out a book called The World Without Us, fascinating read.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    3. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, especially given your sig: "I don't therefore I'm not."

    4. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Psychotria · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am not sure that variations in genetic material gathered from the site has been studied yet. You are correct, however, that this is a very interesting thing to be studying. The fact that corals seem to have recolonised successfully (albeit with less diversity) is 'possibly' due to nearby atolls "seeding" the affected areas. The nearby atolls were obviously affected by radiation as well, and therefore subject to possible genetic mutations. Therefore, measuring the difference in genes between the nearby places and ground-zero might show no difference at all (because the mutated corals etc from nearby "seeded" the ground-zero area). I am not sure how this would be resolved, unless the baseline samples were taken from further away, where they were not irradiated... which leads to further problems (the genetic difference--if any is measured--may be caused by other factors)...

    5. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by tezbobobo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One interesting mutation or effect of natural selection would probably flora and fauna with a naturally higher resistance to radiation. At least by slowly killing ourselves we are making sure other species survive.

      Terence Boylen - Yeah!

    6. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Super+Jamie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Look up what's going on around Chernobyl at the moment.

      Whilst humans can't go anywhere near it, or the town of Pripyat, many species of plant and animals have flourished in the 30-odd years since the infamous meltdown. These species display no visible deformations, and continue to breed and live undisturbed by humans.

      Almost as if they had just... evolved to cope with the massive doses of radiation they cop every day.

    7. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fatal mutations are just that because nature looks after itself.
      anything too weak or different will usually just die or get killed by something stronger.

      unfortunately with human there would be much wailing and concern and everything possible would be done to try to help the poor bastards who had problems with radiation. Enough help to get them to the point where they can BREED. this is where the problem with human and radiation comes in.

    8. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yeah, let's just kill all the mutants!

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    9. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The effects of mutations on populations or entire ecosystems can not really be accessed within 50 years. Sure, the reality proved much less dire than certain activists of the time would claim, but it's undeniable that increase in radiation do have an effect.

      Most mutants will simply die before being born or shortly thereafter. The genes of the few mutants that make it to th adult states tend to be recessive as well and quite likely to just get "neutralized" by selection, genetic drift et al.

      All these bombs have done is simply increase the mutation rate within the ecosystem, so a process that might have taken hundreds of thousands of year to have a visible effect may just take centuries. Mutations can not be calculated, simulated (realistically) or foreseen in any other way either. A specific mutation attached to a dominant gene might not have an effect at all for millions of years until that gene itself changes and by doing so "enables" the mutation. Populations may be stable for a long time until the "right" mutation happens and causes the whole thing to transform. Atrificially increasing the mutation rate might increase the probability of this happening, but it definitely doesn't guarantee it.

    10. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by lostraven · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm wondering about a slightly different mutation. The full article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080415101021.htm) mentions that the water reached temperatures of 55,000 degrees F at the time of the explosion. Would the surviving corals from such extreme temperatures gain an adaptation to higher water temperatures? I mention it because there was another related article about how areas where varying temperatures exist might create corals more resistant to bleaching: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129183829.htm I'm just picturing the human race rapidly increasingly evolution of coral by raising the water temperatures to the extremes associated with atomic explosions. I'm no evolution expert but am curious if such a thing could occur?

    11. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think the increased fatal mutation would end up selecting for individuals with better resistance to mutation or better error correction in DNA replication?

      If so, maybe these areas will generate species better suited to space exploration :)

    12. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Nursie · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think you'll find any coral at all resisted that, but that the area was re-colonised by corals from a little further afield.

    13. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans can live there too, no problem, as long as they don't mind being dead in 20 years. Unless you do a statistical analysis of the animals you're not likely to notice them dying of cancer, since it's a slow process.

    14. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Hojima · · Score: 1

      That is an interesting idea, to see the genetic divergence that radiation may have caused. Radiation doesn't really cause genetic diversity any more than natural carcinogens and time. While this idea is not as preposterous as the many superheros that got their power from radiation (rather than a tumor as god intended [jk]), it's still silly to think that a radioactive contamination lasting less than a century would do anything. Even if it spanned much longer, you have to realize that most evolution occurs from natural selection, that is, the species that has the advantageous mutation must already be present, and that process alone can take decades in cases with animals (such as the peppered moth in its famous case study) that go through a generation rather quickly. If we wanted to see the difference that the radiation could make, it would probably take something along the span of human existence to get significant data to achieve a statistically viable result that says radioactive contamination even causes more diversity (which it should over that amount of time).
    15. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by snerdy · · Score: 1

      21 sure is a pretty odd 30.

    16. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by snerdy · · Score: 2, Funny

      22, dammit! I guess the radiation mutated my math, too.

    17. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by grep_rocks · · Score: 1

      What changes genetic changes would anyone expect in plants and animals living in a high radiation environment other than increased resistance to radiation? Nothing else about the environment has changed, so you wouldn't expect natural selection to change anything else - classic examples of evolutionary change evolve as responses to changes in the environment (antibiotic resistant bacteria - moths in england reponding to pollution caussing the bark on trees to darken etc...) there is plenty of natural variation in species to account for changes in the environment already, extra radiation will not "increase" the rate of evolution (whatever that means) - if having extra errors in the DNA copying machinery was somehow beneficial to organisms (in terms of increasing the rate of adaptation) they would already have evolved to have error prone DNA copying machinery without the need for radiation....

    18. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      as far as anyone can tell there hasn't been that much impact on the animals there

      When a wild animal in the middle of nowhere dies of cancer, who's going to know?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    19. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true... the animals in the area around Chernobyl have bounced back! With out the pesky human influence they have thrived.

      Of course I don't have infant mortality numbers for those animals but I'm sure people would be fine with a slight increase in infant mortality...

    20. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Informative

      These species display no visible deformations, and continue to breed and live undisturbed by humans.

      Well, to be fair, I'll mention that one study involving birds found that the chicks of birds nesting in the sarcophagus had double the expected deformity rate over birds nesting outside of Chernobyl.

      Given that a number of the bird species are the ones where the chicks gradually push out the others such that only one survives out of a laying of 2-6 eggs, the effect of the extra deformities was essentially noise, statistically insignificant to the species.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    21. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually the case. The weak died of the radiation, and the strong have had offspring and colonized the space left by the weak.

      However, we don't know how much genetic material was modified by the radiation. In order to see the effects, we might have to wait for a couple dozen of thousand years... Or more?

    22. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Funny

      Studying the effects of high background radiation on coconuts is hardly going provide much insight into the effects on, say, human brains. But what if they've become migratory? I think that would be of some interest.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    23. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Unless you do a statistical analysis of the animals you're not likely to notice them dying of cancer, since it's a slow process. True! On the other hand, if you don't think that such have been done in the 22 years since Chernobyl, and scrutinized like crazy, then you're quite naive of the research.
    24. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Informative

      Look up what's going on around Chernobyl at the moment.

      Whilst humans can't go anywhere near it, or the town of Pripyat, many species of plant and animals have flourished in the 30-odd years since the infamous meltdown. These species display no visible deformations, and continue to breed and live undisturbed by humans. The thing they're still not sure on is how much of the wildlife is actually reproducing in the area and how much is infill from surrounding territories. They've yet to see the birds with speckled albino feathers make it back from a migration.

      While I think that the recovery of Chernobyl is astounding and certainly flies in the face of what everyone expected, I don't know if the bounceback after a global nuclear war would be quite so quick.

      Of course, the thing that people tend to overlook is that the planet is capable of surviving quite a bit of trauma. We may not survive, but the planet will do fine. That's the thing that so many environmental skeptics fail to grasp, the human race will break before the planet does.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    25. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      When a wild animal in the middle of nowhere dies of cancer, who's going to know?

      How many wild animals are going to survive long enough to even get cancer? I mean, most wild animals have a life expectancy of rather less than a decade. Exceptions are fairly rare.

      In addition, merely getting sick can be enough to weaken an animal sufficiently so that it either gets caught by a predator, or if it's a predator that it starves to death.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    26. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Vexar · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Mr. Williams, kindly rethink your statement about silence regarding 60 years of nuclear power. There is no "they." It is not that anyone is silent, it is that you are not reading what is out there.

      If anyone wants to know where the #1 source of airborne, man-made radiation is, they need go no further than a lump of coal. Nuclear power plants require employees to wear film strips, much like those we see in cameras. The strips change chemistry and appearance with radiation. Ask a nuke worker how their rad levels are. They know. Oh, and if such a worker ever gets a medical treatment involving radioactive material, be it a barium enema (whee!) or chemotherapy, they would set off all the safety sensors in the facility if they went onsite, and trigger an immediate shutdown (unless you're from Soviet Russia, and you disabled the safety features because you wanted to try an exciting experiment in Chernobyl, which didn't work 4 months ago, because those safety triggers shut you down, but this time, you turned them off!).

      Back to the lump of coal. The average coal plant, say 1000 MW, produces 5.2 tons of uranium (6% fissile), and 12.8 tons of thorium. Where does it go? Up into the atmosphere, as soot. Where does it come from? It is a rock. It comes from a dark hole in the ground, maybe W. Virginia. Nuclear power plants are closed systems. They don't combust materials and breathe oxygen. Every once in a while, the control rods need to be replaced, along with some pipes and such. The equivalent nuclear plant to said coal plant produces one standard shipping container full of rad "waste" per year. All reactors designed in N. America and many in Europe and Japan are planned with storage space for the rad waste, on-site.

      One thing we could do, is once every 10 years, fill up a small freighter with the rad waste containers of the world's reactors, ship it to the Bikini Atoll, and drop the load 30 feet offshore. The metal will corrode eventually, but before that it will be covered with coral.

      You know, I don't care a hoot about carbon dioxide, it has never done me much harm. Ozone is produced en masse by lightning strikes in the troposphere, and nobody can beat the mess made by a single, violent volcanic eruption. I do want to see the end of combustive power systems, because we don't need competition for oxygen. Living where I do, I can vouch for my corner of the planet and say it ain't getting any warmer. I do care about airborne radioactive particulates (aka soot) and rad waste. The coconut trees and oceanic coral have proven their value to society, I think we should reward them with a higher status in our world culture by making them the guardians of rad waste. If a lone coconut should travel thousands of leagues, well, shoot, it's not going to hurt anyone more than a barium enema. At least it isn't in the air.

      Why did I put the waste of rad waste in quotes, you wonder? Well, from where do you think the barium and iodine and whatever ungodly stuff is in chemotherapy comes? A hole in the ground? No, that waste serves medical purposes. The rest of it could be put into a different reactor design, in accordance with the reactor families planned out in the 40's and 50's, but nobody has spent the research dollars to go far with them.

      Final note: I heard a rumor that the prescription drug "Lunesta" contains a coconut extract. Is that why they have glowing butterflies in their ads?

    27. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

      You'd like to think so, wouldn't you... (sorry, I just couldn't resist)

    28. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Danathar · · Score: 1

      I watched that TV Show too :)

      You are not entirely correct that there have been NO visible deformations, just far less than expected.

    29. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by mdielmann · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is a higher incidence of fatal mutation, but over all what I have read is that it hasn't had a huge impact. The three-eyed hawks seem to have no benefit, but the three-eyed mice are doing well. The deer with heads on both ends seem to have trouble deciding where to go, but the three-headed lizards are pretty fierce. One can only imagine the scoffing such stories will bring in a few millenia's time.
      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    30. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by mdalal97 · · Score: 1

      Of course, the thing that people tend to overlook is that the planet is capable of surviving quite a bit of trauma. We may not survive, but the planet will do fine. That's the thing that so many environmental skeptics fail to grasp, the human race will break before the planet does. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "environmental skeptics," but my concern is that we will take most existing species down with us. We already are eliminating habitat and species (or animal stocks) at an alarming rate for short term gains. It would be great if we treated our role on this planet as stewardship. Instead we continue to be short-term binge users. And yes, given time, I do believe the earth's ecosystem can recover.

      I don't want to drift much more off topic, but I do realize that the reality of life on this planet is far more complex and nuanced than my "short-term binge users" comment.
    31. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is wrong, I was a S.T.A.L.K.E.R. at chernobyl not 6 months ago and I can tell you, the local wildlife is definitely mutated.

      And the brain scorcher... man you don't even want to know.

    32. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is an interesting idea, to see the genetic divergence that radiation may have caused. You call always look at Chernobyl though for a glimpse as to what radiation has done to the wildlife there. As far as I know, it hasn't affected it all that much. There is a higher incidence of fatal mutation, but over all what I have read is that it hasn't had a huge impact. Another site that you could look at is Rocky Flats in Colorado. While us humans that contaminated the hell out of the place are trying to figure out how to warn future generations into the thousands of years about what we did there, the wildlife has reclaimed it as their own. It's a wildlife refuge now and as far as anyone can tell there hasn't been that much impact on the animals there. The problem is though that we're only seeing the first few generations of life since these places have been contaminated. We don't know if it will build up over time and cause radical genetic diversion or if life will adapt to it, it could take a very long time to see the effects of what we have done. Oh, and if you're curious about some of the other things that we have done check out a book called The World Without Us, fascinating read.

    33. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call always look at Chernobyl though for a glimpse as to what radiation has done to the wildlife there. As far as I know, it hasn't affected it all that much.There is a higher incidence of fatal mutation, but over all what I have read is that it hasn't had a huge impact.
      The whole evolution thing is about very small changes that don't look like anything during one lifetime. To the extent that mutations contribute to genetic diversity, most DNA mutations have no effect. The second most likely result is lethality. Only a very small fraction of mutations actually alter phenotype, and that usually in small ways. Freaky mutations are mostly seen in comic books.
    34. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Black-Man · · Score: 1

      Technology marches on... and just like scrubbers were invented to passify Nitrous Oxide, there are already initiatives under way to address the removal of uranium from coal. This being accomplished at the prep plant instead of the power plant and hence less invasive.

    35. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "environmental skeptics," but my concern is that we will take most existing species down with us. We already are eliminating habitat and species (or animal stocks) at an alarming rate for short term gains. It would be great if we treated our role on this planet as stewardship. Instead we continue to be short-term binge users. And yes, given time, I do believe the earth's ecosystem can recover. Environmental skeptics = Rush Limbaugh, George W, and the usual gang of idiots. Remember them saying trees produce more CO than factories, that volcanoes release more pollution than the rest of human activity? They seem to have the notion that the Earth is an awful big place and it just seems so unlikely that little old us could have anything to do with changing it one way or another. They also fail to grasp that the Earth does not have to be destroyed outright to make it uninhabitable for us, subtle changes could do us in. Even if we have something like the Permian extinction and fundamentals of the biosphere are fundamentally changed, life will come back and be adapted for that new environment. We humans, though, would be screwed six ways to Sunday.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    36. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      I just watched a TV special about Chernobyl. The trees have mutated (red bark), as have one of the bird species. The river worms now reproduce sexually rather than asexually, which should increase genetic diversity.

      My friend visited the area in the Ukraine and he said there are a ton of squatters that have snuck around the barricades.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    37. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by houghi · · Score: 1

      It is not that humans can not go near there. It is just that they know better and care for the individual. Other species went in and a certain percentage was killed, wile the rest lived.
      Let people do that and you will most likely see the same thing happening. We just do not want to be (responsble for) the one that dies.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    38. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the thing that people tend to overlook is that the planet is capable of surviving quite a bit of trauma. We may not survive, but the planet will do fine. That's the thing that so many environmental skeptics fail to grasp, the human race will break before the planet does.

      Of course, but it's good for people to also remember that stuff can happen without the human race "breaking", which would still horrify most people. Reduce the average life expectancy to 20 years and the race can still survive. It'll just suck to be us.

    39. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually there are quite a few mutations of the plants and animals that are there, but in general they live on. The trees sprout non-normal branches is one example that comes to mind. But yes in general, they are doing quite well there. It will be interesting to see how future generations of plants and animals there live. And just think if the rest of the world becomes contaminated for some reason, maybe the world will be repopulated with chernobyl rad-hardened animals. Who knows.

    40. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of wildlife around Chernobyl is only remarkable in that anything survives at all. The first ever scientific survey on this was conducted last year and found that both the number of bird species and the number of individuals of each species steadily decline as you get further into the contaminated areas.

      Anything else you may have heard is anecdotal or even conjecture. Among that however, regarding visible deformations, are many reports (and some photos) of weirdly deformed trees within the zone.

      Btw, it has only been 22 years since 1986.

    41. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by smannell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the reason for the "glowing butterfly" in the ad is that it is actually a Luna moth. I think they are playing on the luna - moon - night time connection with the name and the moth just happened to make a nice mascot.

    42. Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts by Vexar · · Score: 1

      If you are referring to the FutureGen initiative, I note that the Dept. of Energy withdrew funding in January 2008 due to cost overruns. If you are referring to something else, please tell us more.

  8. obvious next step by evwah · · Score: 5, Funny

    now we just have to bomb the shit out of Australia so our scientists can proudly proclaim "these coral reefs are far LESS radioactive than any Australian city!"

    1. Re:obvious next step by Marbleless · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... and nuking them would be considered as major improvements to some of our cities ;)

      --
      --I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
    2. Re:obvious next step by kramulous · · Score: 3, Funny

      Great! I might get the day off work. Perhaps a little island hoping will be in order.

      --
      .
    3. Re:obvious next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's the Australian work ethic for you :P

    4. Re:obvious next step by nosfucious · · Score: 1

      I suggest staring with the Dandenong-Cranbourne area. But leave the rest of Melbourne alone.

      --
      Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
    5. Re:obvious next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't bother bombing franka though, the people living there are already mutated enough.

    6. Re:obvious next step by CaptainBruce · · Score: 1

      I saw the movie... everyone gets bikes and V8's.

  9. berserk? by polar+red · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I put the Geiger counter near a coconut, which accumulates radioactive material from the soil, it went berserk. How did You defend yourself from that coconut?
    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    1. Re:berserk? by zoogies · · Score: 5, Funny

      We gripped it by the husk. It's a simple matter of weight ratios, really.

    2. Re:berserk? by deroby · · Score: 1

      Apparently a swallow snagged it away and took off towards England...

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    3. Re:berserk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By releasing the 16-ton weight of course, then eat the coconut rendering the assailant harmless.

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

      As a wizard: I cast Fireball and hope the coconut fails its saving throw.

    5. Re:berserk? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Bravo, I didn't even notice the ambiguity there :) far too early in the morning

      I'm thinking the gravity gun would have been enough defense though. At least with the coconuts you can sense them with a geiger counter. You can't be so sure with the head crabs and drop bears though.. :/

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:berserk? by rastan · · Score: 1

      It was the Geiger counter that went berserk. Easy to defend against: Take the batteries out.

      --
      Understanding is a three-edged sword. --Kosh
    7. Re:berserk? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Luckily the coconut had panicked the turn before and dropped its weapon - and as everyone knows, nonhuman combatants are unable to pick up a weapon once they've dropped it. The researchers proceeded to use the Stun Rod on the coconut, but it later died because the base didn't have a Containment Unit.

      (Okay, so most /.ers are not going to get that one. Who cares?)

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    8. Re:berserk? by Justabit · · Score: 1, Funny

      wow, must have been a very strong swallow?! What type was it?

      --
      "Persistance is Fertile" - Me. I can quote myself if I want to.
    9. Re:berserk? by Schlage · · Score: 1

      When I put the Geiger counter near a coconut, which accumulates radioactive material from the soil, it went berserk. How did You defend yourself from that coconut? No, no. It was the geiger counter that attacked her! Since she was holding it at the time, however, defending herself from it wasn't too hard... until the coconut caused it to mutate, of course.
    10. Re:berserk? by niktemadur · · Score: 2, Funny

      But what if he's carrying a pointed stick?

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    11. Re:berserk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a wizard: I cast Fireball and hope the coconut fails its saving throw. You can just fire a Maximized Issac's Greater Missile Swarm so that the coconut has no way to save.

      Oh, what? You're a low level wizard? Get off my backyard before I turn you into a chicken.
    12. Re:berserk? by deroby · · Score: 1

      although the article doesn't mention it, I wouldn't be too surprised if it was an African swallow.

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    13. Re:berserk? by SirSmiley · · Score: 2, Informative

      X-COM: UFO Defence for the win =)

    14. Re:berserk? by karmaflux · · Score: 1

      Cydonia or Bust

      It is now clear that the coconut hordes are being controlled from an underground base in Cydonia - which is an unusual area of Mars featuring five sided pyramids and a large formation resembling a human face. Cydonian civilisation once flourished on Mars many millions of years ago, but we do not know why it died out, or what the connection is with the latest coconut activity there. Whatever the explanation we must send an expedition to Cydonia. This is the only way that we can defeat the coconuts. We must destroy the controlling master 'brain'. We will need an Avenger craft equipped with the most awesome destructive power at our disposal. There is nothing more we can learn here - we must await the outcome of the Cydonian assault.

      --

      REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

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

      x-com

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

      This is a reference to XCOM: UFO Defense, an old but very good PC game. Ufopaedia.org has a good overview of the game.

      The game is no longer sold or supported, but it is freely available at abandonia. It runs fine on windows XP, although it does crash occasionally when switching from geoscape to combat so save before combat missions.

      wcoenen

    17. Re:berserk? by naveenoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Must have been a case of kernel panic :P

    18. Re:berserk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wanted to reply to this one, but I ran out of TU's!

    19. Re:berserk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X-com?

    20. Re:berserk? by siwelwerd · · Score: 1

      Are you African or European?

    21. Re:berserk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      xcom

    22. Re:berserk? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I recommend using DOSBox. It runs the game perfectly and you don't even need Windows.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    23. Re:berserk? by zoogies · · Score: 1

      But then, African swallows are non-migratory.

    24. Re:berserk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I put the Geiger counter near a coconut, which accumulates radioactive material from the soil, it went berserk. How did You defend yourself from that coconut? Same way you defend yourself against a banana.
    25. Re:berserk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tis an XCOM reference. One of the best games of the 90's...

    26. Re:berserk? by BarlowBrad · · Score: 1

      X-COM FTW!

    27. Re:berserk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UFO Enemy Unknown.

      You'd be surprised how many will have got it.

    28. Re:berserk? by ilyam · · Score: 1

      Luckily the coconut had panicked the turn before and dropped its weapon - and as everyone knows, nonhuman combatants are unable to pick up a weapon once they've dropped it. The researchers proceeded to use the Stun Rod on the coconut, but it later died because the base didn't have a Containment Unit. (Okay, so most /.ers are not going to get that one. Who cares?) Nice ... X-Com was easily one of the best games I've ever played. Ah, the memories ...
    29. Re:berserk? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      With a point-ed stick.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    30. Re:berserk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Took me two readings but I got it.

  10. Radiation similar to that at any Australian city by slashgrim · · Score: 1

    How bad is the radiation in Australian cities?

  11. Sinister translation: by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    REAlly, I think it proves that after we screw things up royally on this planet to the point where we are no longer able to live on it, it won't take the earth too long to bounce back and thrive once more. Hopefully the next set of inhabitants on this planet will look after it better than we do.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    1. Re:Sinister translation: by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      REAlly, I think it proves that after we screw things up royally on this planet to the point where we are no longer able to live on it, it won't take the earth too long to bounce back and thrive once more. Unfortunately, we're also great at building bunkers and other highly isolated environments. Even if we got hit with a dinosaur-killer i imagine we'd bounce back better than most animals. If we've killed ourself off, the world has to be really really well wiped.
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Sinister translation: by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I guess the real question is can we screw things up so bad that it would be uninhabitable without specifically trying to?

      I know we have made places less desirable and some virtually uninhabitable but the entire planet? This sort of just shows how feeble and futile our efforts are when confronting stronger and less understood elements like forces of natural progression and mother earths systems of making things the way they are that we champion them in the fight against change. It is quite possible that we can't destroy the entire planet as well that we can't stop it from changing either.

    3. Re:Sinister translation: by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      It's quite easy to imagine a natural disaster killing 10% of humans. It's quite possible to screw up our environment so that we cannot feed ourselves, and 90% of population dies within a year.
      But I cannot really imagine anything that kills 100%. 99.99% - well, that would leave 600,000 people scattered in remote locations. That'd probably wipe out our culture, but it would be enough for homo sapiens as a species to bounce back, and use their opposable thumbs and remnants of technology to become the dominant predator once again.

  12. Really? by bazald · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "occasional forays of illegal shark, tuna and Napoleon Wrasse fishing"

    Couldn't the criminals find a less radioactive region to illegally fish? Who wants to eat radioactive fish anyway? I know the article says that "ambient radiation is low", but I doubt the fish would be rated A-grade.

    --
    Insert self-referential sig here.
    1. Re:Really? by snkline · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or they could be rated AA-grade! Maybe the radiation pre-tenderizes them. Sorta like they have been cooking really really slowly their entire lives.

    2. Re:Really? by The+Bender · · Score: 1

      Hey, these fish may have their issues, but they cure cancer and glow in the dark as a bonus. Perfect for barbecues.

    3. Re:Really? by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What customer of illegal fishermen checks the stuff with a geiger counter?

      And due to alleged radioactivity of the area, patrols are likely scarce, law enforcement not too fond of exposing themselves to radiation.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:Really? by pipatron · · Score: 1

      Couldn't the criminals find a less radioactive region to illegally fish?

      Of course they could. But there are more thieves there. This area is empty, so it's probably easier and takes less time to get the same amount of fish, compared to the safe areas.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    5. Re:Really? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Fishing in an area that is inherently empty also allows them to blare the Top Gun soundtrack when they take off.

      We're going right into the danger zone /
      Fishing in the danger zoooone

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:Really? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      "occasional forays of illegal shark, tuna and Napoleon Wrasse fishing"

      These illegal sharks and tunas smoke pot. Illegal potsmoking tunasharks. Teh horrorz!

      You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish. Especially a laser equipped radioactive illegal potsmoking shark!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  13. Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those of you who are anthropologists as well as zoologists, it should be mentioned that there were native inhabitants of these islands that were forced to move before the tests.

    We did it to Native Americans on the continental United States as well but it really bears mentioning that there was a pretty gross injustice paid to these peaceful peoples in the name of atomic testing. I remember watching this footage on an ABC special as a kid and I luckily recorded it so I could watch it over and over again. When watching project Baker, I kept thinking "Wow, that's impressive, that was somebody's home."

    I suppose I'll be called a self-hating liberal but I believe we should never forget the price we pay for the weapons we hold. These weapons that were supposed to be the end of war aren't and any future horror developed to stop war won't be the end to war either.

    Just imagine what the look on your face would be if someone showed up and told you to evacuate your state because it was now going to be used for nuclear testing. You probably wouldn't be very happy to leave your home in the name of warfare.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by UrinalPooper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As sad as it is, if the alternative was fighting a drawn-out conventional war instead of just trying to scare the crap out of one another, the US and the USSR's Cold War took a relatively minimal toll on human life... displaced natives notwithstanding. The proxy wars fought in southeast asia are a testament to how bloody and destructive a conventional war between those two countries would have been. If the bloodshed between India and Pakistan declines, we may be in a position to thank those destructive weapons. It would be wonderful to think that people shouldn't need such things, but humanity has a long history as a destructive and bloodthirsty animal. Either way, I'm heartened to see that some life is beginning to thrive in the region.

    2. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by MishgoDog · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I suppose I'll be called a self-hating liberal
      You're a self-hating liberal.

      Actually, I completely agree with you, so...
      I'm a self hating liberal.
    3. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Mantaar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why I'm always saying Ahmadine-whatever should have his own atomic weapons.
      Seriously, Iran may be as islamistic as it gets, but they're humans after all and hopefully not stupid enough start a nuclear war.

      Their opponents however, who are trying to do everything to prevent them from producing A-bombs in the first place, are not to be trusted that much, because they (America, Israel) are the ones that have started wars in the last couple of years (the latter only in "defense", but I think they/their PR may be able to produce one such "defense" case quickly).

      On the other hand, there shouldn't be yet another A-armed nation. But that's a vicious circle: how is a nation without A-bombs going to defend itself against, say, America? It's nearly impossible to defend yourself against America at all these days - if don't have that bomb, there's nothing you can do. If you do have it, however, it's likely you're not gonna be attacked in the first place.

      Maybe this is the reason we haven't seen a war in Iran yet. They are afraid. Uhm... on the other hand it's more likely to be due to the pain in the neck that is Iraq and the upcoming elections in America.

      I must admit that those are speculations I'm really just pulling out of my ass... but hey, that's what the comments threads are for, aren't they? Oh dear, I can se the "leftie"/"commie"/"antisemite"-responses rushing in... but please, in the name of whatever deity you believe in: a Semite may just as well be an Arab, so be correct and call me anti-Judaist. Which is not what I am, as I call some Jews my friends... btw: this article has not gotten the publicity it deserves.

      --
      I'm an infovore...
    4. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by durin · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod you higher than score 5, Insightful.

      --
      Why, yes! I AM new here.
    5. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uhh, except that, see, they don't really care if they die to bring the last Mahdi. The russians did care if they died.

    6. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this all about? The people on Bikini were NOT Americans. That means they don't count. End of problem.

    7. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Zey · · Score: 1

      I suppose I'll be called a self-hating liberal [...]

      I can't imagine why. Liberals hate neo-conservatives and their policies.

      Liberals ain't neo-conservatives, so why would you be self-hating?

    8. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't seen war in Iran yet because of the fear of the appearance to the Arab nations that the "western world" (mostly the US) is targetting Arab nations one at a time, beginning with the fringes.

      To counter your other arguments, let's imagine that I am a cruel dictator hell-bent on obtaining total authoritarian control over as much of the world as I can possibly have. Instead of doing it directly, like Hitler, I instead offer social welfare programs, gaining the support of the local populace. At the same time, I fund "militia" groups to accomplish goals to move the world in the direction I want it to go, where it almost demands that I step up to the plate to defend it. I publicly denounce those groups as terrorists, while still funneling money and support to them.

      So far, it sounds a lot like the latest Star Wars trilogy. But in this situation, unless you can find my very well-hidden connections to the militia groups, you have absolutely -nothing- on me, even if you suspect I'm behind it all.

      People want to believe the good in others. Because of my many social welfare programs and contributions, people would find it hard to believe that I could support what amounted to terrorism. Those who complained would be laughed at (conspiracy theorists) or ignore as wackos or be ostracized for making "false" accusations against one who was so benevolent (in public).

      If you are patient and sociopathic, it's easy to accomplish.

      -M

    9. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Sethus · · Score: 1

      It's a difficult question of who has the power to police who, and you accurately grasped the crux of the problem. People are people no matter where you are, there is no "good" and "evil". We start active defense wars because we're afraid (we being the USA) of other new emerging powers as well as losing our economic and military superiority. This is kind of ironic as hell 'cause this brings me back to that old Star Wars quote (and it's probably much older than that) that, "the tighter you grip, the more star systems slip through your fingers". Anyways, I'm getting off subject.

      The MAIN problem with letting some other countries get nuclear weapons (Iran for an example), is that we don't trust the leadership. I think the overall populous is easier to predict on whole, but the Presidant of Iran is something of an enigma, for example he doesn't believe in the halocaust. If it happened or not (I've met someone who was in a concentration camp, and that number tatoo they have is chilling to see) the fact he thinks it's a lie while Western countries had to fight in that war and even today has impact in our culture is a testament to why we just have a hard time inherently trusting him. You can't trust someone who challenges some of your basic believes.

      Think back to your highschool debate class, if you can prove someone makes a bad arguement in one of their points you can challenge his whole arguement as being suspect. But again, I'd like to reitterate that people in general (Muslims, Jews, Baptists, whatever) are generally all the same and have the same interests and in my opinion could be trusted with nuclear tech. It's some of the leaders they have that scare the piss out of the West. (Same way Bush scares the piss out of the middle east)

      --
      Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
    10. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by internetcommie · · Score: 1

      If I lived on a tropical island I might not be so positive to evacuation, but I live in Iowa. Just tell me where I'd be evacuated to and I'll consider it!

    11. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by barry99705 · · Score: 1

      Not that what we did was a good thing, but at least we moved them. I can think of a few different groups that would have just used the islanders as more test subjects.

    12. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I suppose I'll be called a self-hating liberal

      No, because the term "self-hating liberal" is redundant.

    13. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      I suppose I'll be called a self-hating liberal but I believe we should never forget the price we pay for the weapons we hold. These weapons that were supposed to be the end of war aren't and any future horror developed to stop war won't be the end to war either.

      Your sentiments are correct. My fear is that we have yet to pay the full price for the weapons we hold. The day we pay the full price is the day that these weapons are actually used.

    14. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      how is a nation without A-bombs going to defend itself against, say, America? There are other ways to survive in the international game without wielding the biggest stick on the block. For example, a wise but smaller nation would be friendly with the United States and get the Americans to foot the bill for their defense (the Japanese, for example, have been very successful at this over the years). It might mean some policy changes here and there to please your patron (i.e. the United States) but just about every decision in the real world involves trade-offs and as you have said, the other route is both expensive and dangerous.
    15. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Torque · · Score: 1

      The real reason to try to prevent a nuclear Iran is not Iran. The real reason is that if Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia will follow. If Saudi Arabia becomes a nuclear armed state, Egypt will follow, as will Syria....and so on. Suddenly it's half the nations of the area carrying nuclear weapons.

      One of the things that's most striking, if you listen to old Cold Warriors like George Schultz or William Perry talk about nuclear weapons, is how close we came during the Cold War to global annihilation. Mistakes become so much more dangerous in a nuclear era. The time available between detection of "enemy" launch and when a retaliation needs to be ordered was (and continues to be) 15 minutes. It's hard to make a good decision in 15 minutes.

      If Israel, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran all have nuclear arms, suddenly you're not looking at a two-nation mutual-assured-destruction standoff, you're looking at an extraordinarily complex international balancing act in which one misunderstanding can destroy an entire region.

      I think that's worth trying to avoid.

    16. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the US were serious about trying to convince Iran and others that they do not need nuclear weapons for their own defense, then the US should not use nuclear weapons for their defense. "Do as I say, not as I do" never works.

      As it is, I think the US is more concerned about maintaining its hegemony than it is about preventing a nuclear war in the middle east.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    17. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing to remember: We were fighting a war against enemies with a bent toward eventual world domination, genocide, and lots of other really nasty stuff. You have to realize that, due to the circumstances, a different set of values apply than would apply in ordinary life. There is NO moral equivalance to what we were forced to do during WWII and what happened during the colonization of the USA.

      I abhor stealing, and normally wouldn't steal anything. (Including downloading music.) But I guarantee you, if my daughter were starving to death I would do WHATEVER it took to feed her.

    18. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Torque · · Score: 1


      I can sum up that post with one phrase:

      "I want a pony."

      Seriously, is this conversation about the real world or a fantasy world? In the real world, the US has nuclear weapons. It shouldn't use them for its defense? That's a fantasy solution, because it fails the primary responsibility of a government: protect its people.

      To that end, is the US safer if Iran and the rest of the middle east go nuclear?
      Obviously, the answer is no.

      So, what is true?

      Certainly, the US has far more nuclear weapons than it need. Certainly, it should say it will not use them offensively. That is a very reasonable position to advocate--I'd agree with that wholeheartedly.

      Do you disagree with the basic premises of my post?
      1) Nuclear weapons are dangerous.
      2) Ensuring that they are properly tracked, accounted for, and not accidentally used is a difficult, and relatively undersolved problem.
      3) Having more countries with them multiplies the danger that an accident will happen.
      4) The middle east is already unstable--would adding nuclear weapons make it more stable?
      5)Does "mutual assured destruction" even work in a multi-party balance?

      Nobody knows the answer to #5--and really, the consequences of being wrong are too awful to contemplate.

    19. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antisemite is the right word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

    20. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The US would do better defending its people by getting rid of its nuclear weapons. As you say, the consequences of Iran, etc, of getting nuclear weapons would be very bad. Our hypocrisy concerning nuclear weapons for defense (we can have them, you can't) is a major obstacle to convincing other nations that they don't need nuclear weapons for defense.

      Since 1) our possession of nuclear weapons encourages others to get nuclear weapons, and 2) other countries getting nuclear weapons would damage our national security, we can conclude that 3) getting rid of our nuclear weapons would improve our national security.

      If you are going to argue that we HAVE to have nuclear weapons for our defense, understand that Iran will use exactly the same argument. You can't have it both ways.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    21. Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your logic is flawed - probably driven more by idealistic wishful thinking. Ever hear of the prisoner's dilemma? By your thinking, the prisoner's dilemma is solved because 1) prisoners betraying the other prisoner's encourages betrayal, 2) being betrayed is bad, 3) therefore, the prisoner should never betray the other prisoner.

      Something tells me that you might actually believe that.

      You seem to think that if the USA did not have nuclear weapons, that all of a sudden Iran and North Korea would end their nuclear ambitions. There is no evidence to suggest that is the case.

      Even then, other countries have nukes. Odds are if the USA dismantled its nuclear program and even withdrew from middle eastern affairs, Iran would just turn around and say "We're defending ourselves from Israel" or "We're defending ourselves from India"

      (That is, unless you blindly swallow Iran's propaganda... which would be ironic given your rightful cynicism towards US propaganda)

  14. You joke, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was rather stunned when, planning my trip to AU a few years ago, I realized that ONE nuclear sub could take out the whole country!
    Or at least send it to Mad Max-land.

    Physically AU is huge. Roughly the size of the US. Superimposing a map of one on the other gives fairly accurate driving times and distance calculations.
    Demographically it is very very small.

    I also figured out the real problem is water. While the US, EU, and CN have large navigable rivers running deep into their continents, AU has nothing to bring water to the center of the country (or more accurately there isn't enough rain in the center to drain and form navigable rivers).
    AU could be a super-power if it had enough water to support a population of 300 million. Instead it is so dry they are lucky to have 1/10 of that at about 22 million.

    1. Re:You joke, but ... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I was rather stunned when, planning my trip to AU a few years ago, I realized that ONE nuclear sub could take out the whole country! Or at least send it to Mad Max-land. Hmm.. so did you ever go on holiday or did you just decide to keep enjoying the tinned food and cable TV in your basement.. uh.. I mean bomb shelter?
      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:You joke, but ... by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      AU has nothing to bring water to the center of the country (or more accurately there isn't enough rain in the center to drain and form navigable rivers)

      Does Australia have no substantial subterranean aquifers?

    3. Re:You joke, but ... by Sleepy · · Score: 3, Informative

      What the other poster said about topping off, and salts.

      You can irrigate, but you also need rainfall once in a while (or you need really cheap energy and good desalination and demineralization such that you're not just watering plants, but spraying the soil slowly and without saturating the soil). If you constantly flood using irrigation, you cause salts to rise to the surface and ruin the soil.

      The Soviet Union destroyed entire nations through bad irrigation policy, turning semi-arid soil into desert. You can find it in Wikipedia under man made disasters.

    4. Re:You joke, but ... by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I also figured out the real problem is water. While the US, EU, and CN have large navigable rivers running deep into their continents, AU has nothing to bring water to the center of the country (or more accurately there isn't enough rain in the center to drain and form navigable rivers).
      AU could be a super-power if it had enough water to support a population of 300 million. Instead it is so dry they are lucky to have 1/10 of that at about 22 million. If only you had an imperial ecologist to help you with the terraforming... of course, I've got this crazy vision in my head of marsupial sandworms in the Outback and Steve Irwin enthusiastically trying to manhandle them.

      The crazy thing is that it isn't just ocean evaporation and the winds that help bring water to a territory, the vegetation has so much to do with it as well. It brings up ground water, breathes it into the air, and can create rain.

      There's a theory that says the Amazon Rain Forest is a human artifact.

      Terra preta ("dark soil" in Portuguese) refers to expanses of very dark, fertile anthropogenic soils found in the Amazon Basin. It owes its name to its very high charcoal content. It is also known as "Amazonian dark earth" or "Indian black earth". In Portuguese its full name is "Terra preta do índio" or "Terra preta de índio".

      Terra preta is characterized by the presence of low-temperature charcoal in high concentrations; of high quantities of pottery shards; of organic matter such as plant residues, animal faeces, fish and animal bones and other material; and of nutrients such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn).[1] It also shows high levels of microorganic activities and other specific characteristics within its particular ecosystem. It is less prone to leaching than surrounding soils. Terra preta zones are generally surrounded by terra comum, or "common soil"; these are infertile soils, mainly Acrisols,[1] but also Ferralsols, and Arenosols.[2]

      Terra preta soils are of pre-Colombian nature and were created by man between 7000[3] and 500 BP ("Before Present"). Thousands of years after its creation it is so well known by local farmers and caboclos in Brazil's Amazonian basin, that they seek it out for use and for sale as compost (see Pedology). Its depth can reach 2 metres (6 feet). It is reputedly known by the locals as self-regenerating at the rate of 1 centimetre per year.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

      Just imagine what we could do if we turned our minds to the greater good instead of the quickest buck.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    5. Re:You joke, but ... by Vexar · · Score: 1

      That's why power plants like Palo Verde are so clever. They cool the reactor with sewage. With a continuous flow of sea water to a reactor built in the center of the continent, you could produce a lot of fresh water. 20 billion gallons per year = a lot. On a sober day, the Australian politicians might vote for it.

    6. Re:You joke, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was rather stunned when, planning my trip to AU a few years ago, I realized that ONE nuclear sub could take out the whole country!
      Or at least send it to Mad Max-land. Typical yank -- always thinking in terms of how much they can blow up...
    7. Re:You joke, but ... by BarlowBrad · · Score: 1

      AU could be a super-power if it had enough water to support a population of 300 million. Instead it is so dry they are lucky to have 1/10 of that at about 22 million. And yet somehow Australia is always the continent that is the most coveted in games of Risk.
    8. Re:You joke, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this were true Canada would be like China.

    9. Re:You joke, but ... by dcam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I also figured out the real problem is water. While the US, EU, and CN have large navigable rivers running deep into their continents, AU has nothing to bring water to the center of the country (or more accurately there isn't enough rain in the center to drain and form navigable rivers).

      That is part of the problem. Another problem is that Australia is extremely nutrient poor. Being in the middle of a continental plate, with few volcaones (none active), means that little new material comes to the surface.

      --
      meh
    10. Re:You joke, but ... by DJDuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its more than rainfall thats needed. Its a landscape problem Australia has. Since the coming of man we have destroyed the landscape (this includes aboriginals).

      Australia did have big wide rivers, it's just that by the time humans got here, they were so wide they are referred to as flood plains.

      The buring by aboriginals and the wholesale clearing by white settlers has caused the water channels we now call creeks and rivers, but these are not a natural part of the landscape. Read some of the notes by the early explorers. They describe large parts of inner Australia that is now desert or close too, as swamp land.

      Peter Andrew's book Back from the Brink, is a great background on the situation along with his suggestions to fix the problem. He not scientist, just a farmer, but he makes so much sense that a number CSIRO scientists are backing his observations.

    11. Re:You joke, but ... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Australia has only 9 major cities all but 1 on the coast but we have over 100 minor cities spread throughout the land (most coastal), we have a similar geographical size to the US but drastically different geography.

      The GP talks about bombing cities but even after that the land would be extremely difficult to invade and occupy, you see in Australia, the land works against you unless you know what you are doing. On the coast it's difficult to cross, where it's flat there's no water, the east coast is separated by a mountain range that runs up the length of the continent, by sea it's thousands of more KM's all of this in 30-45 Degree C heat (in the winter too, our semi-tropical/semi-arid regions receive rains in the summer not the winter). This is not taking into account Australia's wildlife which out of the 10 most dangerous creatures in the world, Australia has all 10 which doesn't mention the crocodiles which have infested most northern waterways and have no difficulty in taking a full grown man (armed or not). This is of course if you discount the Australian Naval and Land forces, which although limited in number boasts some of the best training in the world. While the GP makes a point about a lack of large rivers the GP is talking in American, European and Asian terms, we have no rivers that stretch thousands of kilometers, we do have rivers that stretch hundreds of KM's which is enough when an enemy is forced to take naval an coastal routes due to the aforementioned lack of water. As I understand it Australia is converted in Risk because it is easily defended but as a counter is hard to break out of. Whist we are by no means a super power, we're definitely up there with the minor powers like Germany and France in terms of technology and economic clout. Australia would easily become a member of the EU if it weren't for the fact were in Asia.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  15. Originally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Originally it went:
    'When I put the Geiger counter near a coconut, which accumulates radioactive material from the soil, it went nuts,'

    1. Re:Originally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is of course confusing because the coconut, being a prone to nut-ism already, is much more likely to go nuts, and the gieger counter is more likely to accumulate radioactive materials, right? ;^)

  16. Re:Radiation similar to that at any Australian cit by cheater512 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Its not too bad but it does cause some interesting side effects.

    What? You thought kangaroos were natural? :P

  17. Nuke em all by m00nun1t · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should consider nuking all environmentally sensitive areas.

    No, wait...

    1. Re:Nuke em all by pipatron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That has actually been a "jokingly serious" suggestion. Increasing the background radiation in an area so humans don't dare to use it or any products from that area. Works great with Chernobyl for example, the forest around the area has a lot more animal life now than before the incident.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  18. Shouldn't Be Any Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chernobyl has already bounced back.

  19. what that tells you by nguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Animal life around Chernobyl is also doing well. That's not an indication that radiation is harmless (most animals are shorter lived than humans, so they can tolerate more radiation), it's an indication that human presence is even more harmful than radiation.

    1. Re:what that tells you by imbaczek · · Score: 1

      I believe you managed to misspell "much" as "even".

    2. Re:what that tells you by hummer357 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't know if this is necessarily correct: if radiation damages the animal's genetic information, wouldn't you see mutations more quickly due to their shorter reproductive cycles?

    3. Re:what that tells you by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      if radiation damages the animal's genetic information, wouldn't you see mutations more quickly due to their shorter reproductive cycles?

      Correct. Around the Chernobyl site, though, there aren't particularly any more mutated animals than anywhere else. There are a few more, but apparently by about as much as you'd expect because of the lack of environmental pressure, so they're more likely to survive.

    4. Re:what that tells you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Animal life around Chernobyl is also doing well. That's not an indication that radiation is harmless (most animals are shorter lived than humans, so they can tolerate more radiation), it's an indication that human presence is even more harmful than radiation. Very true. So save nature by removing yourself. :-)
  20. This mean... by Clarious · · Score: 0

    Fallout will never happen, only human get wiped away from the planet, and mother Gaia will be happy. As long as we don't use too many H-bombs

  21. Better article and detail by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 5, Informative
    More informative article here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080415101021.htm

    The full story is that although some of the corals have bounced back remarkably, the nuking has also resulted in the localised extinction of some more sensitive sensitive species

    However the research has also revealed a disturbingly high level of loss of coral species from the atoll. Compared with a famous study made before the atomic tests were carried out, the team established that 42 species were missing compared to the early 1950s. At least 28 of these species losses appear to be genuine local extinctions probably due to the 23 bombs that were exploded there from 1946-58, or the resulting radioactivity, increased nutrient levels and smothering from fine sediments. Article also has some good stats on the nuking itself:

    One of the most interesting aspects is that the team dived into the vast Bravo Crater left in 1954 by the most powerful American atom bomb ever exploded (15 megatonnes - a thousand times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb). The Bravo bomb vapourised three islands, raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees, shook islands 200 kilometers away and left a crater 2km wide and 73m deep.
  22. Radiation and life by Knutsi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I once heard something fascinating. After the Chernobyk accident, the radioactive cloud that contaminated (mainly) the north of Norway caused allot of fear in people, and for people's health. The gouvernment continued to slaughter and burn massive amounts of raindeer and livestock.

    A friend later told me that the meat was actually fully usable, and that it's destruction may have been unnecessary. She suggested we should have fed it to the elderly population, which did not have time to develop cancer from the meat anyhow.

    There will be allot of talk in this discussion about the fear of radiation, and that is why this discussion is so good. Life does well with increased radiation! Humans don't however, by virtue of the way we look at human society and human worth. What it does say however, is that fear of nuclear energy, a power source that may have dramatically less consequence for life on this planet than most other energy sources, prevents us from progressing in the energy debate! (and maybe also in space exploration, given worries of launching nuclear-powered space craft)

    Check this news item for a similar case to the coral reef in the article.

    "People in the first world have convinced themselves that chemicals and radiation stand in the way of their personal immortality"
    - James Lovelock

    1. Re:Radiation and life by jamesh · · Score: 1

      A friend later told me that the meat was actually fully usable, and that it's destruction may have been unnecessary. She suggested we should have fed it to the elderly population, which did not have time to develop cancer from the meat anyhow.

      I don't think you have a very thorough understanding of how the food chain works. Soylent Green will in turn be eaten by the younger population. We need to be taking care of what we feed our elderly!
    2. Re:Radiation and life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to this: http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_176865.svd (content in Swedish) 849 persons in Sweden developed cancer as a direct result of the Chernobyl accident according to a joint effort by two (Ã-rebro and LinkÃping) universities. The SRPA were sceptical on the result since they had predicted about 300 cases. This is at about 1400 - 2000 km from the incident. The wind carried the radioactive downfall all the way there.

      People in the worst affected areas were told not to eat meat from reindeer, fungus, wild berries or fish. Still ten years after the accident thousands of reindeer were discarded due to too high radiation to be considered safe for human consumption. According to the article.

    3. Re:Radiation and life by Knutsi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      According to this: http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_176865.svd (content in Swedish) 849 persons in Sweden developed cancer as a direct result of the Chernobyl accident according to a joint effort by two (Ã-rebro and LinkÃping) universities. The SRPA were sceptical on the result since they had predicted about 300 cases.

      That is very interesting (: 849 of a total of 22 400 people with cancer, in a study of 1,14 million people. One question is if these people would develop cancer anyway, just a different type and a bit later. One other interesting thing to look at is not just how many cases of cancer develops, but how much it cuts of the life expectancy/quality of the people who get it, and in the population at large.

      I once read that the number of people who died from Chernobyl is 47. That where those who died fighting the fire, and from direct exposure to massive radiation. Loads more have their life-spans shortened, but in the entire population affected, the impact was very small, and that compared to the energy produced, the danger to peoples lives from nuclear is tiny compared to effects from other common energy sources.

    4. Re:Radiation and life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is very interesting (: 849 of a total of 22 400 people with cancer, in a study of 1,14 million people. One question is if these people would develop cancer anyway, just a different type and a bit later.

      The study apparently ruled out that possibility and the falldown was concluded as the sole reason these people developed cancer. They would probably not develop any cancer if it was not for the falldown.

      I just wished I knew more on the subject...
    5. Re:Radiation and life by jafac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Life may (or may not) actually thrive in radioactive environments.

      That's actually a red-herring in the argument against nuclear power and NIMBY-ism. The real worry isn't about real health effects. It's financial.

      The real argument is;
      "If your plant explodes, because you spent money on CEO bonuses instead of safety inspections, even if your radioactive cloud does not meaningfully impact my health and safety, the measurable radiation in the soil of my back yard will destroy the value of my property in the open real estate market, while your endowed CEO floats gently down to an easy retirement on his golden parachute."

      This is a REAL and measurable negative impact from nuclear power, and no amount of "radiation is good for you" PR-spin is going to change it. Nobody wants their nest-egg destroyed. Nobody wants their hometown community erased.

      Even increased regulation and vigilance is not going to impact this effect that nuclear power plants have on residential real estate markets.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    6. Re:Radiation and life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend later told me that the meat was actually fully usable, and that it's destruction may have been unnecessary. She suggested we should have fed it to the elderly population, which did not have time to develop cancer from the meat anyhow.

      And how do you know the elderly won't live long enough to develop cancer from the meat? Just because they are old doesn't mean that they'll die in the next couple of years.
  23. Bikini Bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure... reefs can bounce. Next they'll be telling us the sponges can talk.

  24. Oblig: by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Funny

    You put the lime in the coconut, and drink it all up... Then die of radiation poisoning.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    1. Re:Oblig: by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Not a lot of airplay, these youngsters won't know the reference. Lyrics:

      ARTIST: Harry Nilsson
      TITLE: Coconut

      Brother bought a coconut, he bought it for a dime
      His sister had another one, she paid it for the lime

      She put the lime in the coconut, she drank 'em both up
      Put the lime in the coconut, she called the doctor, woke him up, and said

      Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
      Doctor, to relieve this bellyache, I said
      Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
      Doctor, to relieve this bellyache

      Now let me get this straight
      Put the lime in the coconut, you drank 'em both up
      Put the lime in the coconut, you called your doctor, woke him up, and said

      Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
      Doctor, to relieve this bellyache, I said
      Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
      Doctor, to relieve this bellyache

      You put the lime in the coconut, you drink 'em both together
      Put the lime in the coconut, then you feel better
      Put the lime in the coconut, drink 'em both up
      Put the lime in the coconut, and call me in the morning

      Brother bought a coconut, he bought it for a dime
      His sister had another one, she paid it for the lime
      She put the lime in the coconut, she drank 'em both up
      Put the lime in the coconut, she called the doctor, woke him up, and said

      Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
      Doctor, to relieve this bellyache, I said
      Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
      Now let me get this straight

      You put the lime in the coconut, you drink 'em both up
      Put the lime in the coconut, you're such a silly woman

      Put the lime in the coconut, you drink 'em both together
      Put the lime in the coconut, then you feel better
      Put the lime in the coconut, drink 'em both down
      Put the lime in the coconut, and call me in the morning

      Woo-oo, ain't there nothin' you can take, I said
      Woo-oo, to relieve your bellyache, you said
      Woo-oo, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
      Woo-oo, to relieve your bellyache, you say

      Yeah-ah, ain't there nothing I can take, I say
      Wow-ow, to relieve this bellyache, I said
      Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
      Doctor, you're such a silly woman

      Put the lime in the coconut, you drink 'em both together
      Put the lime in the coconut, then you feel better
      Put the lime in the coconut, drink 'em both up
      Put the lime in the coconut, and call me in the mo-o-ornin'

      Yes, you call me in the morning
      If you call me in the morning I'll tell you what to do
      John Lennon reportedly said the Harry Nillson was his favorite band.
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  25. Coconuts migrate on their own... by quibbler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even without husk-gripping, coconuts move... they're supposed to, thats how they get from island to island...

    I think this is a note to self: do NOT eat coconuts that you find on the seashore. I wonder if anyone's realized that little issue...

    1. Re:Coconuts migrate on their own... by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Funny

      Even without husk-gripping, coconuts move... they're supposed to, thats how they get from island to island...

      I think this is a note to self: do NOT eat coconuts that you find on the seashore. I wonder if anyone's realized that little issue... This is only true if the island's swallow population is sufficiently large.
      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    2. Re:Coconuts migrate on their own... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be a good thing : coconuts accumulate radioactive material, migrate (with or without swallows) and so doing spread it out over a larger area thus eventually bringing it back to normal background levels.

    3. Re:Coconuts migrate on their own... by Fizzl · · Score: 1

      Thanks for setting us up for some intriguing dialogue involving swallows and their air speed.

    4. Re:Coconuts migrate on their own... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do NOT eat coconuts that you find on the seashore. I found one last weekend. When I smashed it open it was gray inside and stunk like rotten eggs. Radioactive or not, I did not eat it...
    5. Re:Coconuts migrate on their own... by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, if they weren't before the nuke testing, now's their chance.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    6. Re:Coconuts migrate on their own... by jalet · · Score: 1
      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    7. Re:Coconuts migrate on their own... by BForrester · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Are you suggesting that coconuts are migratory?"

    8. Re:Coconuts migrate on their own... by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

      It's been a problem with tumbleweeds and migratory ducks before....

      http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/C/200113639.html

  26. Death by Coconut by volcanopele · · Score: 1

    And of course Maria Beger was eaten alive by the mutant coconut.

    --
    The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
  27. Yeah but.. by PinkyDead · · Score: 5, Funny

    With the giant mutant anemones and sponges with teeth and the crushing and the laser eyes!

    To people of Japan, your cities are no longer safe. Run for your lives. The coral is back, and this time it's pissed .... and mutant.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    1. Re:Yeah but.. by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      Actually, The Coral are really big in Japan, I've heard.

    2. Re:Yeah but.. by asterion · · Score: 0

      Yep, the whole place is full of monsters now! Here's a sim: http://snakewater.com/deepones.html

  28. News at nine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ho Hum. Yet another scientist states the bleeding obvious

    Current carried Coral spawn finds way to recently devastated rock in the pacific ocean. Whoopie do

    Far more interesting would be a long term study of the changing dynamics of the coral of fast travelling coral (for want of a better term) vs more aggressive coral but slower travelling coral spawn.

    ie. is this a first in best dressed scenario?

    Other than that this is a Nothing to see here. move along story.

  29. Huh. Huhuhuhuhuuh. by strack · · Score: 1

    Nuked nuts. Huhuh.

  30. That may happen by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Coconuts tend to be blown off of trees during storms. Then they float a LONG distance. Somebody COULD pick one up and eat it. I am surprised that the feds has not decided to use plant remediation to pull the radiation off the island. All they need to do is harvest the grass and even trees every so often. Of course, if it still has high radiation, put a number of animals back there. This is the time to see how humans will do in space.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:That may happen by Knutsi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or maybe the people where the coconut washes ashore have a life-expectancy lower than that of the west, and the increased cancer risk that comes with eating it is minor, and irrelevant. Cancer largely develops late in life, and is of more concern to populations living as long as we in the first world than most other places around the globe.

      Even if you killed of all the coconuts, the cost of the operation could be high. Maybe, in terms of people's life quality, the money would be wiser invested covering other issues of health in the region, giving more people higher quality of life, rather than lengthening the life expectancy of a few unlucky individuals by a matter of days on average.

    2. Re:That may happen by tripwirecc · · Score: 1

      Jesus christ. I guess I should stop drinking industrially packaged coconut water. Who knows where the nuts came from.

    3. Re:That may happen by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      Yurk. Who would eat a coconut that floated for days on the sea ?

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    4. Re:That may happen by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Yurk. Who would eat a coconut that floated for days on the sea ?


      I would. Coconuts have evolved in such a way that their thick, outer hull keeps it afloat should it happen to fall into water. Coconuts can float for hundreds (thousands?) of miles to distant beaches without incident. The tough, inner object that we find in stores is kept completely dry during this time. The white insides and milk are perfectly safe to eat.

      Except for the radiation.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:That may happen by drix · · Score: 1

      Coconuts are able to float a long ways, but (almost) anyone who's in the business of picking up coconuts off the ground and eating them is going to have an infinite supply of fresh coconuts at their disposal, and won't be very interested in a waterlogged, half-rotten one.

      --someone who used to live in the South Pacific :-)

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    6. Re:That may happen by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Funny
      Who knows where the nuts came from.

      Typically Los Angeles, though they are widely distributed amongst other communities as well.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    7. Re:That may happen by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

      and the increased cancer risk that comes with eating it is minor, and irrelevant.

      This. One of the fun things back in HS was to take the radiation detector to various common items. Heck, Brazil Nuts, Lima Beans, and Bananas are radioactive. So aren't carrots and potatoes. Potassium, an essential nutrient is radioactive.

      An extra dose of radiation doesn't mean that somebody is going to die from cancer. It all depends on the dose.

      rather than lengthening the life expectancy of a few unlucky individuals by a matter of days on average.

      Unless the individual is making said radioactive coconuts a staple of their diet; I'd say minutes is more likely.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:That may happen by Tolkien · · Score: 1

      The shell covering the husk would protect it perfectly. I'd eat one happily.

    9. Re:That may happen by electrictroy · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>>"Background levels at Bikini Atoll are now 'similar to that at any Australian city,'"

      Note to self:
      Don't visit an Australian city.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    10. Re:That may happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you killed of all the coconuts

      I don't think killing coconuts solves the radiation problem.

    11. Re:That may happen by batquux · · Score: 4, Funny

      Coconuts tend to be blown off of trees during storms. Then they float a LONG distance. Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
    12. Re:That may happen by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because we totally understand cancer... and the problems leading up the getting cancer are Obviously fine. Hell, you actually get stronger the closer you are to dying from cancer, or even better... right up until the point were it is detected. As a matter of fact, if you just avoid getting cancer detected at your doctor, your tumor will turn your liver/prostate/breast into the incredible hulk's version of it! Yeahhhhh! That's how cancer and cancer causing agents work... perfectly safe till 30 years later!

    13. Re:That may happen by Count_Froggy · · Score: 1

      "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?" Yes, actually, coconuts do migrate, that is how they spread from island to island. They just don't summer on the Riviera, and then go home.

      --
      If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
    14. Re:That may happen by I+Like+Pudding · · Score: 1

      They just don't summer on the Riviera, and then go home. Some do.
    15. Re:That may happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typically Los Angeles

      Most aren't grown there, they just float in from the rest of the country. When I lived in Key West, my buddy used to say "This is where freaks go to turn pro".

  31. Irradiated coconuts? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    That explains the crazy contraptions the Professor came up with.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  32. It's cool by 2.7182 · · Score: 4, Funny

    that we totally defeat the Bikini Atoll in a nuclear war!! Woo go USA

    It was silly though, back when US sentiment was so against Bikini Atoll, that everyone decided to change the name "Bikini" to "Freedom suit."

    1. Re:It's cool by WiFireWire · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there

    2. Re:It's cool by LrdDimwit · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to see "birthday suits" myself ...

  33. s/empty/dangerous/ by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    How the hell did I make that mistake?

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  34. Hmmmm. by jd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you get the nut mod patch working with the open source clone of X-COM, it could be fun. (Coconut being the toughest, walnut for a typical foot soldier, and so on. Replace the different rocket systems with African and European swallows.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  35. Chernobyl: Life in the dead zone by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Hope I got the title right, but I think this was the name of a great documentary following the resurgence of wildlife in Chernobyl's exclusion zone. I came away with the impression that the radiation is more of a detriment to humans to the rest of the natural world.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  36. Well, yes and no by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These weapons that were supposed to be the end of war aren't and any future horror developed to stop war won't be the end to war either. First, we developed the weapons and these kept USSR and America from going to war. The simple fact is, that both side were terrified of using these. We all knew what would happen. So, it really did accomplish what we wanted. And later, other nations aquired the knowledge. Some by their own work, and others by stealing it. The ones who developed it on their own had an advanced enough form of gov. that they are not real threats to those around them. Of course, until recently, Israel was probably the only one who had any real chance of using theirs.

    The real problem is the recent round of nuclear build-out. These countries do not have the maturity to handle these. Basically, Turkey and Pakistan. This can be blamed soley on a number of top pubs who sold our nuke secrets for a few gold coins (relatively speaking). People like RichardPerle, douglas feith, EricEdelman, and Marc Grossman. These guys, and others, sold it to Turkey and Pakistan. This action really could start a war. Pakistan supposedly passed on their knowledge to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc. Hopefully the next president will go after these guys for the treason that they committed.

    In the end, I suspect that it will not matter. There are so many other easy ways to attack other ppl. Groups like Al Qaeda could easily mutate the avian flu and then spread it quickly in the west (and all for less than a dozen of their ppl; thank god that they are religious; the mullahs do not want to kill the innocent). Plenty of ways for us to kill each other.

    And if could stop a world war, yeah, I would allow the feds to move me to another place, pay for a new home, and provide me with a nice new job, schooling for my children, etc, which IIRC, is what we did.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Well, yes and no by jrumney · · Score: 2, Informative

      The real problem is the recent round of nuclear build-out. These countries do not have the maturity to handle these. Basically, Turkey and Pakistan.

      Turkey? The only nuclear weapons on Turkish soil are the ones stored at the USAF base at Inçirlik.

    2. Re:Well, yes and no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if could stop a world war, yeah, I would allow the feds to move me to another place, pay for a new home, and provide me with a nice new job, schooling for my children, etc, which IIRC, is what we did. OK, how about this? Suppose that a race of space aliens you've never heard of before comes along and tells you that the entire USA will be used for testing some newly-fangled weapon and that the population will be moved to the central Asian plains in Russia instead, all in the name of preparing for a war with *another* race of space aliens you've never heard of before.

      Still sound good?
    3. Re:Well, yes and no by khallow · · Score: 1

      The US isn't in the middle of nowhere. The aliens can test it somewhere else like the asteroid belts where less people live.

    4. Re:Well, yes and no by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      I think he may have meant India. The fact that India and Pakistan are enemies and both have nukes should be some cause for concern.

    5. Re:Well, yes and no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is somewhere between Mexico and Canada, if that doesn't qualify as the middle of nowhere then what does?

    6. Re:Well, yes and no by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      The simple fact is, that both side were terrified of using these. We all knew what would happen

      I remember reading an account of a showdown between Gornachev and Reagan. Both were drunk, both had the "nuclear footballs" out. A couple of drunken fools almost decimated the planet.

      Could be urban legand, I don't remember where I saw it.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    7. Re:Well, yes and no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly where is the marshall island in relation to the then enemy, japan? And what islands did japan visit for ages (answer; ALL OF THEM;).

    8. Re:Well, yes and no by khallow · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of apocryphal stories like that. I imagine it was actually worth it to spread stories about how crazy your leader was in order to pad the leeway with which he or she got treated by other world leaders. Brinkmanship is a lot less fun when you think the other guy is crazier than you are.

  37. Actually, it is not anymore a deteriment to us by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All of life has the same problem. That is the radiation induces faster changes in all. Some on birth defects. The vast majority are simply miscarried (most ppl never realize that many women suffer at least 1 miscarriage and it is due to a fatal defect). But of course, some make it to the world. The recent Indian girl who was born with a duplicated face (probably the best place that she could be born was in northern India; there she is a goddess; elsewhere she would be considered a freak) was possibly induced via radiation or pollution. For the living, it means loads of cancer. No doubt that animal life in any of these radioactive areas are suffering shortened lives due to such. In fact, I am amazed that we (USA and Russia) are not tagging these animals to see how long and what they look like at end of life. These are all living labs. Heck, I am more amazed that Hollywood has not made some interesting movies based on just these areas.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  38. Illegal Tourism in 3, 2, 1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the reason the reefs are now flourishing is because they are mostly undisturbed by humans...Background levels there are now 'similar to that at any Australian city... So what do we do? We tell the world about it of course!
    If humans were kept away because they were 'afraid' and consequently the reef has recovered why would you tell everywhere it's safe? Doesn't that defeat the point?
  39. Bikini by mi · · Score: 1, Informative

    Bikini Atoll, that everyone decided to change the name "Bikini" to "Freedom suit."

    The term "bikini" had no other meaning back then. The suit you are referring to was so named because of the bomb-testing — a stroke of a marketing genious. I must admit, it is quite rare to find a slashdot-poster less informed than a musician:

    Aim for the body rare, you'll see it on TV
    The worst thing in 1954 was the Bikini
    See the girl on the TV dressed in a Bikini
    She doesn't think so but she's dressed for the H-Bomb
    by Gang of Four.
    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Bikini by Hojima · · Score: 0

      I must admit, it is quite rare to find a slashdot-poster less informed than a musician:.

      Are you serious? What part of any curriculum is that information in? Sounds like some fun fact that only a well-versed professor would mention during a lecture. Who would go out of their way to learn anything like that? It's pretty elitist to be condescending anyone that doesn't know something like the origin of the bikini's name.
    2. Re:Bikini by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's pretty elitist to be condescending anyone that doesn't know something like the origin of the bikini's name. You must be new here....
    3. Re:Bikini by ZmeiGorynych · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry man, but this 'fun fact' is really common knowledge...

    4. Re:Bikini by Detritus · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I thought it was common knowledge. If you limit your education to what is taught in the classroom, you will never be a well-educated person. The detonation of the Mike device was an important point in the cold war and the arms race between the USA and USSR. The "invention" of the bikini was a notable point in the cultural history of the West during the 1950s.

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

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    5. Re:Bikini by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Awesome... Except that you're wrong. The US Government didn't name the F'ing bikini...

      http://www.swimsuit-style.com/bikini.html

    6. Re:Bikini by Curien · · Score: 2, Informative

      What part of any curriculum is that information in?

      It was in my high school US history book.

      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
    7. Re:Bikini by idontgno · · Score: 1

      I learned about the connection between the tests and the fashion craze in high school US history. But I lived close to a major US air base and cold-war history involving the nuke race seemed to come up a lot. I think the history department head was a retired officer or something. YMMV, apparently.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    8. Re:Bikini by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Funny but I thought it was pretty common knowlege. I think I saw it on a history show on HBO 20+ years ago.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:Bikini by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Maybe there is a generation gap? I'm pretty sure that all the over 30s on here know about the origin of the bikini. Then again, we all had vinyl records (and not because we were cool or had golden ears).

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Bikini by mi · · Score: 1

      The US Government didn't name the F'ing bikini...

      I never claimed, that it did.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Bikini by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      It was a joke. Relax.

      Thanks for the trivia. Who are you, Cliff Claven?

      Musicians aren't necessarily uninformed. What a stupid assumption.

      If you are going to insult someone, at least use proper spelling when doing so. Don't look dumb when trying to insult someone else's intelligence.

      --
      blah blah blah
    12. Re:Bikini by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I had forgotten that song. Thanks for reminding me of it; good tune. Also, I would assume that knowledge of the history the term bikini would be more prevalent among people who lived through the cold war in the USA than others.

    13. Re:Bikini by Creepy · · Score: 1

      You underestimate musicians. Sure, there are the drug and booze soaked ones that only sing about sex and booze, but even the worst are sometimes incredibly well informed and insightful.

      Take for instance the early industrial band Skinny Puppy (I remember one member OD'd on heroin) on this track about Saddam's use of VX gas (in this particular attack on rebels outside Karbala, it was later found that Sarin was used - Saddam used VX on Halabja later, however, killing many, many more). Note that the exact chemical agents weren't known - as the lyrics go: "we are still analyzing water, soil, and human tissue samples..." Look here for more recent analysis. The references to Israel were political, from the belief that Iraq would use the weapons on Israel if attacked in retaliation.

      On that song, this always bothered me - "In a shop in a working class district one day last week one man demonstrated the idea of a chemical warfare protector by putting a plastic shopping bag over his head."

    14. Re:Bikini by instarx · · Score: 1

      I thought it was common knowledge. If you limit your education to what is taught in the classroom, you will never be a well-educated person. It's an age thing. Like Dana Perino, Bush's 30-something Press Secretary who didn't know what the Cuban Missle Crisis was when asked a question about it. But still, you are right - what would seem to be common knowledge to people with curiosity are just obscure facts to those without it.
    15. Re:Bikini by instarx · · Score: 1

      If you are going to insult someone, at least use proper spelling when doing so. Don't look dumb when trying to insult someone else's intelligence. That's certainly good advice, but if you are going to complain about someone's spelling (the most pathetic of all slashdot rejoinders, BTW), make sure they actually spelled a word wrong. Here is the original post:

      I thought it was common knowledge. If you limit your education to what is taught in the classroom, you will never be a well-educated person. The detonation of the Mike device was an important point in the cold war and the arms race between the USA and USSR. The "invention" of the bikini was a notable point in the cultural history of the West during the 1950s. Not a misspelled word in it that I can find. What word would you spell differently?

    16. Re:Bikini by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      That's certainly good advice, but if you are going to complain about someone complaining about someone's spelling (the other most pathetic of all slashdot rejoinders, BTW), make sure you know which post was replied to.

      I didn't reply to that post, in other words. The post I replied to misspelled the word genius, ironically enough. ;) And I replied not because the person misspelled something, but because the person was being a jerk.

      How's this for a meta-discussion?

      --
      blah blah blah
    17. Re:Bikini by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull .... shit ....

  40. 200ft mutated iguana? by apodyopsis · · Score: 1

    Any sign of a 200ft mutated iguana in TFA?

    Cue the cut scenes of panicked citizens running away from the shoreline whilst an authoritative man barks orders into a microphone.

  41. Science should not include hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geiger counters indicate the level of radiation received by the sensor. It can either indicate a high level of radiation, or a low level of radiation, and emit the necessary audible tones relative to that sensed level.

    Usually, if a piece of equipment is said to "go berserk," it means that the reading seems somehow flawed, as if the device is not operating properly. So, in the author's attempt to exaggerate one meaning, he actually conveyed something quite different through the misuse of language.

    So, as far as I am concerned, he could not measure the level of radiation emanating from the coconut because his equipment was broken.

  42. not those nuts... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

    "When I put the Geiger counter near a coconut, which accumulates radioactive material from the soil, it went berserk," says Beger.

    At this point Beger realized he was pointing it to his crotch. It's all fun and analysis until someone grows another arm out of their back.

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
  43. Don't Forget the Price by eldavojohn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First, we developed the weapons and these kept USSR and America from going to war. The simple fact is, that both side were terrified of using these. We all knew what would happen. So, it really did accomplish what we wanted. You're not really trying to argue that both sides understood we would never ever use the nuclear weapons we had worked so hard to build, are you? Both sides of the coin are madness, as you'd never spend so much money creating these weapons never to use them. I once read a book by Robert Strange McNamara (see also Fog of War) that talked numbers. The numbers he talked about were how many nuclear weapons we built during the cold war and also how much each of these weapons cost. MIRV technology, kill areas, megatonnage, etc. That's what we bought at any cost on taxpayer money. Meanwhile people in the United States still starved. Children around the world over died.

    All these countries that you speak of would put their entire population (and some have) into disgusting poverty in order to get their hands on nuclear weapons.

    The real problem is the recent round of nuclear build-out. I don't get it, how do other countries getting the bomb change your logic any further? I mean, the U.S. was religious enough an the U.S.S.R. was so anti-religion it was worse than being religious. You say these countries could really start a war because they lack maturity ... could you please explain how the U.S. or Russia are any more mature than they are? Are you talking technologically mature because that has little to do with how you use nuclear weapons. Or is maturity just the safe way to say we hate them? I'm surprised you weren't calling China immature.

    In the end, I suspect that it will not matter. There are so many other easy ways to attack other ppl. Groups like Al Qaeda could easily mutate the avian flu ... If that's so easy, why don't you tell me how that's done (and why haven't they done it in the past five years). Not even Al Qaeda is as immature as you think they are. Bin Laden has talked number counts of how many Americans he wants dead ... they are not out to create a mass epidemic that would almost certainly spread the world over like Stephen King's The Stand.

    Biological warfare would just be the new horror, we'd get strains of all our favorite diseases and so would Russia, China, all the countries you listed. There'd still be conventional war, we'd still dump half our resources into developing these strains and everyone everywhere would still be thinking that it's a good thing we'll never use them. Until the day we do.

    This is an endless cycle, we're doomed to repeat this forever. If you want to get a Large Hadron Collider operating in the United States, convince congress it can create black holes that would easily be used as weapons against anyone.

    And if could stop a world war, yeah, I would allow the feds to move me to another place, pay for a new home, and provide me with a nice new job, schooling for my children, etc, which IIRC, is what we did. Money solves everything, does it? I would wager some of these people (as the same special interviewed the older ones) didn't really care about that.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Don't Forget the Price by cliff45 · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that the great scientific discovery of nuclear power is just another example of a Win/Lose for us all. It just doesn't seem right: We get a super-powerful energy source that produces a intensely deadly by-product (radiation), plus it gets used to threaten other "enemy" nations all around the world. I'm all for national security, but the Nuclear Age seems to have caused a major schizophrenia affliction among the leaders of "nuclear" nations as well as the ones who clamor for a neutron fix from a good-old Hydrogen bomb.

      I also find it rather interesting that both Canada and Australia produce almost 45% of the worlds' raw Uranium that gets mined each year, and neither of them have any nuclear weapons that I know of. source: http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html

      Australia is also the nation that leads the world in the development of highly advanced process systems to enrich raw Uranium into more pure forms that get used for both beneficial electrical generation and destructive weapons too: http://www.silex.com.au/

    2. Re:Don't Forget the Price by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Neither of those nations really needs them.

      Despite this not being fashionable rhetoric on /., it isn't like the US just randomly attacks countries all over the world. In general most modern democratic nations get along just fine with the US. The countries that do not get along so well tend to be dictatorships, monarchies, etc. And even many of those get along OK - it just tends to depend on what crazy policies their leader imposes.

      It is rarely in the interest of anybody to go to war - most nations find peaceful ways to work things out as a result.

      So, if you are a generally peaceful, democratic nation like Canada, why would you want the expense of nuclear weapons? It isn't like anybody is going to invade you - the US wouldn't let anybody since Canada shares a border and the US has always benefitted from keeping an ocean between it and any aggressor. Canada just keeps a token military to demonstrate partnership with the US/EU/NATO/etc, and that's about it. If you have a powerful and benevolant neighbor your money is almost always better spent on something other than guns.

      The same sorts of arguments apply to Austrailia as well. Generally speaking, no Westernized nation is going to allow one of their kindred to get invaded. These nations share common language (mostly), culture, economic ties, etc. As much as Americans complain about France they're not going to sit back and watch if pirates start attacking French shipping off the coast of Africa - what can happen to France can happen to the US as well. And as much as Europeans complain about US policy they're not going to sit by idly if a serious attack is mounted against US interests. Economically there is some rivalry, but there is more in common than otherwise.

      About the only first world nation with tense relations with the US is China, and that would be because it is a dictatorship. Sure, there is some tension with Russia here and there, but with the general rise of democracy most people are willing to give the Russians the benefit of the doubt. The fact is that most Westerners value democracy highly, and tend to distrust any government that does not hold free elections. This is just such a fundamental principle that it makes Westerners wonder what else they might be capable of.

  44. Attack of the mutant coconuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason those Aussie cities are so radioactive is all the damn coconuts washing up on the shore!

  45. "It went berserk" by Rick+Richardson · · Score: 1


    What was the reading?

    1. Re:"It went berserk" by trongey · · Score: 1

      What was the reading? "Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning"
      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  46. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  47. Two Headed... by einnar2000 · · Score: 1

    we now have a 60 year experiment that could tell us about long term effects but they are silent. That's because nobody cares about two headed coconuts. Someone start a special interest group for them, and get them federal funding, quick!
  48. How do you convert berserk to mSv/hr? by kombipom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Exactly! Geiger counters are usually ridiculously sensitive. I don't think that "going berserk" can be easily translated to mSv/hr. Presumably this guy has no training in radiation safety and shouldn't be anywhere near the atoll.

    1. Re:How do you convert berserk to mSv/hr? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Most Geiger counters are crappy for sensitivity. Scintillation counters are ridiculously sensitive. My Geiger counter can't see my smoke detector or my tritium-filled keychain toy. It does okay with big pieces of pitchblende-filled granite.
      If a Geiger counter says something's radioactive, it's hot enough I want to ask some questions before I spend time there.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  49. hero's in a hard shell by Venture37 · · Score: 1

    have they found any teenage mutant ninja turtles down there??

  50. SIGH by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Far too many do not think logically today. I just wonder if this is a reflection of public schools or having had too many neo-cons in office.
    Did we want to use nukes? Well, to the point of testing them. And we did. We did all sorts of tests. But other then first use of these, we never used on ppl again. Just because we have these weapons does not mean that we will use them. We have sarin and VX in our arsenal (as do a number of western countries). We also have a number of biologicals that have been weaponized. And of course, we have our nukes. All of these same items are possessed by Russia, China, and a number of western countries. Can we use ever these? ABout the only way is if we are in a world war again. No other time would we use such horrors. In fact, just about any country that uses these will be ostracized unless they were attack by such first. Have you ever taken any of the martial arts, learned to shoot a gun, or archery? If you know these things, do you really feel the need to use these against others? Nope. You just want to be prepared.

    Maturity in a gov. is the ability to recognize that some of your actions are NOT in your citizen's best interest and then acting that way. Many leaders act in their own personal interest and that is considered immature. In a mature gov, their will be enough safe guards to prevent 1 or several ppl from being able to carry out such policies. That is the idea of congress, which is to reign in control on the president (or that is what they are suppose to do). Nearly all democracies/republics operate in such fashion. But even totalitarian states such as china can do so. China is controlled by a relatively small group of ppl, but they have controls on each other. Would I call them mature? Well, lets just say that I would not call them immature. They are in a massive build up of their military (esp on nukes and ICBMs), but I think that overall they will handle themselves well. Is maturity about hating somebody? Nope. USSR was mature. They actually had controls in place. OTH, what kind of controls does Musharraf have? Relatively little (hence relatively immature), though he would have to explain himself. Likewise, if North Korea's Kim Jong-il acquires this and decides to use this, will he have controls placed on him? NONE.

    As I mentioned in my first post, AQ has controls in place by their view of religion. That control has stopped them from taking the next step. So, you want me to tell you how to weaponize Avian Flu? The funny thing is that I have thought about writting a book about this (as in a drama ). Here is the recipe.
    1. Send about 6 of your ppl to indonosia where it is still spreading slowly. Have them work the smaller chicken farms. At some point, 1 or more will become sick. Bring them back to pakistan. Immeadiately. And get their blood. IOW, you are trying to obtain a sample.
    2. At that time, take about a dozen or so of your patriots that want to see their 72 virgins and subject them to regular flu (in particular, one that is NOT in the western yearly line-up; easy to find). IOW, you get these ppl sick with regular flu.
    3. Then inject them with small samples from the infected avian flu person. Remember the idea is to get these to exchange DNA material. The only way that happens is in a host who has both viruses.
    4. Then have others who will tend to these ppl. No kissing. Little touching. Just air flow. The same couple of ppl per incubator. If any of them get sick, then pull their blood and watch carefully. If they die, it is avian flu that has become airborne. And with enough human incubators, it will happen.
    5. send ppl to the west, once there, inject self and then walk around the place that you are at. Simply send out 1 person / major city and let them go to the airport, major indoor sporting events, malls, etc. By the time that somebody figures it out, 10 % of population would be infected. And zero time to do a vaccine.

    Now, before you get your panty's all in a bunch and rant and scream that I have just told

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  51. that's not the only benefit... by Fearghaill · · Score: 2, Funny

    Also, the island's tomacco crop has never been better!

  52. Swallows could make it worse by BiggerBadderBen · · Score: 5, Funny

    I imagine that a pair of swallows, either African or European, could take one of these coconuts quite far.

    1. Re:Swallows could make it worse by PoeticExplosion · · Score: 1

      You fool, African swallows are non-migratory!

      --
      Power corrupts. Knowledge is power. Study hard. Be evil.
    2. Re:Swallows could make it worse by jgoemat · · Score: 1

      No, they'd have to have it on a line.

  53. Mine the coconuts by rbanffy · · Score: 1

    Couldn't we mine the coconuts for nuclear fuel? ;-)

    That would create a whole new meaning to the term "biofuel".

  54. Yet another strange place to put a link by verin · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is an example of the linking in slashdot that drives me crazy.

    In this:
    I found this New Scientist article interesting, as I was actually alive (albeit very small) when Bikini Atoll was H-bombed. The article says that the reason the reefs are now flourishing is..

    Why is 'Bikini Atoll was H-bombed' linked, which would mean that clicking on it would lead to information about the bombing?

    Why isn't 'this New Scientist article' or even 'The article says' the linked words?

    In slashdot entries with a number of links, I can rarely tell what to click on, because of inane references like this.

    1. Re:Yet another strange place to put a link by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Why isn't 'this New Scientist article' or even 'The article says' the linked words?

      They were when I submitted it.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  55. Well, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    if the package says, "made in china", you really might wish to re-consider.

    1. Re:Well, by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      Then you might get radiation poisoning AND lead poisoning.

    2. Re:Well, by niteice · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wouldn't they cancel each other out?

      --
      ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
  56. Re:Subterranean Aquifers by Redge · · Score: 1

    Yeah... I think we do... but you still need rain to top them up. And - if you modify your water table too much - everything over here gets a lot more salty all of a sudden. Something about Acid Sulphate Soils... Our habit of irrigating areas that were the bottom of the ocean 60 million years ago is coming around to bite us in the arse...

  57. Correction by Detritus · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The test at Bikini was Castle Bravo, the first test of a "dry" thermonuclear device.

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

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Correction by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

      I like the way they label the detonation as "radiological accident". Classic.

  58. Good News Everyone! by Layer+3+Ninja · · Score: 1

    I've taught the coconuts to glow in the dark!

    --
    Power corrupts. Absolute power...is even more fun.
  59. We've been lied to by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

    I've always heard that only roaches will survive a nuclear fall out, but it turns out the reefs and coconuts will do just as well.

    --
    Can I bum a sig?
  60. Eureka!! by Zorbane · · Score: 2, Funny

    We have to send people? Shoot, we don't even have to get near...

    ...just nuke the damn things and have done. Would destroy the blasted things right quick and there would be no danger from radioactive coconu....oh...

  61. Re:Radiation similar to that at any Australian cit by Aehgts · · Score: 1

    And the platypus? Surely proof that nature has a sense of humour.

    --
    "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein
  62. Hurrah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for misplaced modifiers!

  63. I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, coconuts to not "accumulate radioactive material from the soil" any more than any other plant.

    Second, the half-life of the radioactive elements created by the bombs tested there are not capable of producing sufficient quantities of isotopes that (even if accumulated in a coconut) would, 50 years later, send a Geiger counter "berserk" unless some moron had it set to such a sensitivity that a piece of granite would do the same.

  64. Re:Nukes for everyone by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1


    Their opponents however, who are trying to do everything to prevent them from producing A-bombs in the first place, are not to be trusted that much, because they (America, Israel) are the ones that have started wars in the last couple of years (the latter only in "defense", but I think they/their PR may be able to produce one such "defense" case quickly).


    Part of the reason to not want Iran getting nukes is that such a condition might be the kind of case were extreme minded Israelis would use theirs. Israel's survival has depended strongly on the notion of being pre-emptive when war is imminent. In '67 they succeeded because they hit first. In '73 they took a licking because the Arabs did. The biggest(and many say only) thing keeping Iran from going to war with Israel is that they would lose. Gaining nukes would go a long way to evening the odds. You can accuse me of taking sides all you like, but it is in everyone's best interests that the odds remain strongly in Israel's favor. Iran's leadership isn't the only group of Arabs who'd readily go to war if they felt they could win. To prevent war, history shows that both sides need to be unlikely to gain anything through war. It's also shown the most certain way to accomplish that is to have the most peaceful side carry the biggest stick.

  65. I for one by JeroenFM · · Score: 1

    welcome our berserker radioactive coconut overlords!

  66. Is is really that rare? by Serenissima · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it is quite rare to find a slashdot-poster less informed than a musician
    Really? What Slashdot are you reading? I see lots of dumb posts. They're the ones that don't get modded + anything. For all the +5's we see, there are a whole bunch of dumbasses posting as well.
    --
    Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  67. Radiation is not so terrible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The effects of lower levels of radiation is not so terrible for short-lived creatures. When a human takes a low-level radiation dose, the consequences are of cancers that start to show up years afterwards. But for a coral polyp or a small fish with a life expectancy of just a few years - cancer is a non-problem, it won't happen until long after the animal would have died of natural causes anyway.

    There may be a small number of birth deformities - but again, these animals produce a bazillion offspring which have a low probability of survival anyway - the few unfortunate deformed ones are merely the first to get picked off by predators - so again, no big deal.

    The biggest issues are of biological concentration of radioactivity. So radioactive contaminants tend to accumulate in the creatures at the head of the food chain - but the absence of those higher predators helps in the reef recovery process.

    It's amazing how quickly nature rebounds when you get people out of the picture.

  68. Film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Film of the detonation (see shot 11).

  69. Concern, Yes by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    The fact that India and Pakistan are enemies and both have nukes should be some cause for concern.

    Concern, yes, but it shouldn't be overwhelming fear. After all, they don't have a dozen nukes between the two of them.

    Go back 40 years and you're looking at the USA and USSR as enemies and thousands of nukes.

    Hopefully the same thing will occur - both sides now know that the other can destroy them, but they can destroy in return. Mutually Assured Destruction.

    Thus, the diplomats become much more important than armies. Peace, of a sort, ensues.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Concern, Yes by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Agreed. That is why I said 'concern' and not 'alarm' or 'panic'. I would not quite liken it to the US/Soviet dynamic though. Neither country was in danger of falling to radical Islamist groups, and Pakistan is. Why would people who do not hesitate to commit terrorism balk at upping the ante and going nuclear?

  70. Same moth, different pattern by Vexar · · Score: 1

    The "Tiger Moth" was genetically identical. What you are referring to is not evolutionary, it is something called "gene expression," just ask a comparative mammalian phylologist. The neighborhood where I live has mostly gray squirrels. The same squirrels are sometimes all black, sometimes all white. Same animal, and no, the white is not albino. It is just white (I can see their eyes are not red). If you live in a neighborhood with squirrels, you may occasionally spot the rarity. I think the white ones are harder to predate (aka 'hunt') in the winter, so I see a similarity to the Tiger Moth you mentioned earlier. Aside from SUVs and the occasional punk kid, few things hunt squirrels in my neighborhood. Still, if it is a squirrel or a moth, the patterns of coloration are just the same. I've seen this in other animals as well. Go look up gene expression. Wikipedia offers a very complicated and complete explanation, but I boil it down to this:
    Gene Expression is like a small function in a big program that usually doesn't get run, but sometimes, if things are just right, it gets run a lot.

  71. Mostly old news, but an interesting posit by RoninOtter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    About 3 years ago there was a TV special on Bikini Atoll and how the wildlife there has exploded due to lack of all human intervention (read harvesting). All of the shipwrecks are now beautiful artificial reefs teeming with life of all kinds and on all levels of the food chain. (The shark population alone is staggering)

    The background radiation levels underwater are zero, so the entire area is now open for private SCUBA charters, with dive packages including boat dives on many of the largest ships sunk there. (The Saratoga, The Nagato, etc)

    As for the coconuts, that's true of any radioactively contaminated area. Living things absorb radioactive material. Especially plants. Plant life and soil are the most radioactive things surrounding Chernobyl. (Unless you're inside the sarcophagus staring at the "elephant's foot" http://youtube.com/watch?v=u5EAS5PT7Q8)

    This begs the question: Could you seed a contaminated area with plants which are good at absorbing radioactive isotopes and harvest/dispose of them to clean up an area? Could we clean Bikini over time by going through several years of coconut harvesting?

  72. In other words by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nuking the site from orbit is not sufficient to be sure?

  73. Chernobyl residents by Vexar · · Score: 1

    Ok, that's not entirely true about the humans. I think "Dateline" was the show that went and interviewed a woman who never left Chernobyl. Old, sure. Scruffy? Among the most. Alive? Well, she has no neighbors, and the place is overrun with wolves and other dangerous animals, so heck, I bet she's always on the run. Wussy newscasters had to bring a 'guide' into the area. I bet she could take Stone Phillips in a bare knuckle knock-down. I wonder if she makes her own soap from the fat of the animals she kills to stay alive.

  74. Keep the Terrorists away from the Cocanuts! by Danathar · · Score: 1

    I can just see it now, a Terror attack where they drop radioactive cocanuts on to unsuspecting American cities from planes....

  75. Off by a Decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...many species of plant and animals have flourished in the 30-odd years since the infamous meltdown.


    22 years is not quite 30-odd.

    2008-1986 = 22

    !30+
  76. Define "bounce". by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Dear dumb-ass reporter, 5 years is "bouncing back", not 50.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  77. Bombs aren't so bad by fm6 · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of a news story I read about a decade ago. There was an island off the New England coast that the Navy used as bombing target. Their permission to do so was up for renewal, and you might expect environmental groups to oppose this. Wrong: the environmentalists calculated that the damage done by the Navy's bombs was more than offset by the protection afforded by making the island off limits to people.

  78. Didn't I see this... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...at the beginning of Godzilla (American version)?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  79. Tautology of survival by Foerstner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Almost as if they had just... evolved to cope with the massive doses of radiation they cop every day.

    The tricky thing about evolution is, only the survivors survive it.

    Naturally, some sub-population will survive and, lacking competition, thrive. Most humans, though, would consider it unacceptable to eliminate, say, the 50% of a population that is most susceptible to radiation (or heart disease, or any other condition) even if the surviving population was stronger and better adapted as a result.

    --
    The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
  80. saving the reefs by wbaxter1 · · Score: 1

    So to save the Great Barrier Reefs we need to Nuke Australia. Sorry Australia its for the good of the planet, nothing personal.

  81. Re:Radiation similar to that at any Australian cit by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Is that why they look like a smaller, cuter, version of Godzilla? Have any of them developed atomic breath?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  82. Nukes 4 Greenpeace by aapold · · Score: 1

    What better way to create an ecological preserve than by nuking it?

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  83. Dad's experience at Bikini by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Dad was at Bikini Atoll and was standing on the deck (enlisted on deck- officers in the bridge!) of another ship when the test was conducted. His ship, the USS Lamson, was unmanned and moored a distance away from detonation to study the range and effect of the weapon. They were told to close their eyes for the flash. He watched his ship just get blown over and sink. Only recently has it been deemed safe to dive on the Lamson. Some day I will go and dive on the Lamson and maybe even see the gunner tower Dad manned.

  84. It's obvious by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

    We had to nuke the coral reef to save it.

  85. And the soil by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    From Jared Diamond's Collapse, another problem is the soil. The Australian plate has been eroded for eons and most of the soil that could sustain plants (natural or cultivated) has been washed away eras ago. Diamond almost suggested to forget about cattle and agriculture and concentrate on mining.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  86. Checking sources by Nodamnnicknamesavial · · Score: 1

    Selective reading is much like statistics...

    "However the research has also revealed a disturbingly high level of loss of coral species from the atoll. Compared with a famous study made before the atomic tests were carried out, the team established that 42 species were missing compared to the early 1950s. At least 28 of these species losses appear to be genuine local extinctions probably due to the 23 bombs that were exploded there from 1946-58, or the resulting radioactivity, increased nutrient levels and smothering from fine sediments."

    http://www.coralcoe.org.au/news_stories/bikini.html

    --
    I have spoken'eth.
  87. Re:Radiation similar to that at any Australian cit by dcam · · Score: 1

    Forget the kangaroos. We have much .

    --
    meh
  88. You ever been to Vancouver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You ever been to Vancouver?