Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Radiation-Resistant Plants Could Be Used In Space

Posted by timothy on from the perfect-for-lunch-in-the-government-schools dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "New Scientist reports that two decades after the world's largest nuclear disaster, life around Chernobyl continues to adapt, with Chernobyl soya containing significantly different amounts of several dozen proteins, including one protein involved in defending cells from heavy metal and radiation damage. 'One protein is known to actually protect human blood from radiation,' says Martin Hajduch of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. In a study to determine how plants might have adapted to the meltdown, Hajduch's team compared soya grown in radioactive plots near Chernobyl with plants grown about 100 km away in uncontaminated soil. Results from the study suggest that adaptation toward heavy metal stress, protection against radiation damage, and mobilization of seed storage proteins are involved in the plant adaptation mechanism to radioactivity in the Chernobyl region (abstract). Determining how plants coped with life after Chernobyl could help scientists engineer radiation-resistant plants. While few farmers are eager to cultivate radioactive plots on Earth, future interplanetary travelers may one day need to grow crops to withstand space radiation."

132 comments

  1. but are they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    first post resistant?

    1. Re:but are they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am all for a reinvented Holocaust that, rather than killing jews, we round up thugs and put them out of our misery. The number one problem in the US and the world right now are thugs that believe acting like animals is the proper way to function in society. All they do is impregnant/get pregnant, wait for the welfare check, and cause meaningless acts of violence. I say if they really love reenacting 50 cent, lets put them on the receiving end of a bullet and see how much they like it. Thugs cause property damage, are harmful to quality of life, and put an undue burden on the state to support them. They are an eye sore of society and there should be a call to arms to take any and all thugs out. Being a thug transcends race, nationality, or color, it is a choice that needs to be crushed. No one should have to live in fear or be on high alert because a burden of the state decide he wants to have some fun and rob/rape/kill someone. Let's turn the tables on these animals and end them all. All those dead thugs will also be less people to contribute to our carbon foot print and more resources to people who actually need them. Imagine how many students would be able to get an education if there were more money freed up from having to feed, clothe, and house a useless thug. These belligerents of society need a new Holocaust to end their world forever, and only then will the world progress.

      Being a thug is actually being promoted by the mainstream media. What are you going to do about that? And where do you draw the line between a thug-like behaviour and social-inconvenient behaviour? And most thugs tend to kill each other off, so there's no problem. And the current US crisis is a white-collar crime, who are you going to shoot?
      Posting AC, let the mods waste their points on something else.

    2. Re:but are they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... running Linux?

  2. I for one... by CBob · · Score: 3, Funny

    Welcome our radioactive plant overlords....

    1. Re:I for one... by davester666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...can I still call dibs on the patent, or did someone else already do it?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:I for one... by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

      Would those be of the Audrey II or Triffid variety? Inquiring extraterrestrial-vegetation-phobics want to know.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:I for one... by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget the bacteria that also thrives in radioactive environments!

      If anything will survive a hard radiation situation it's bacteria, plants and other kinds of simple life.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:I for one... by RsG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are no "simple" kinds of life. Dismiss that notion from your mind. It may be what you learnt in school or from popular culture, but it isn't accurate.

      Living things everywhere are shaped by evolutionary pressures. The niches they occupy and the threats they face differ, so too do the mechanisms by which they adapt. But from a basic level, there are no orders of lesser to greater life, except those that exist in our collective imagination.

      Life does not become more advanced. It becomes better adapted to the challenges. "Survival of the fittest" here means fit in the sense of adapted, not "superior" (which is one reason why the phrase is rarely used by people who know the subject well).

      Bigger life forms may be more complex in the sense of having more parts, or possessing intelligence, but they are not more advanced in any meaningful way. Culturally, we draw a distinction between intelligent and unintelligent life, but intelligence itself is simply another survival mechanism. One that we value as a species, but for reasons unrelated to survival itself.

      The reason the smallest living things adapt swiftly to new threats like ionizing radiation has to with reproductive span. The faster you breed, the more quickly you can adapt. Larger forms of life breed, and therefor adapt, more slowly. So in the aftermath of a nuclear disaster (or war), the first to recover are naturally the smallest, but not because they are any simpler.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    5. Re:I for one... by Aranykai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Describing something as "simple" doesn't imply that it is inferior.

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    6. Re:I for one... by Yokaze · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are implying something, which the grand-parent did not. simple is lesser, complex -> more advanced -> better.
      > Bigger life forms may be more complex in the sense of having more parts, or possessing intelligence, but they are not more advanced in any meaningful way.

      So there are more complex lifeforms. Who said something about more advanced? Still, even more advanced wouldn't be wrong. It just means later in time or intricate.

      That people implicate better or higher is the mistake, as you already put it correctly.

      > So in the aftermath of a nuclear disaster (or war), the first to recover are naturally the smallest, but not because they are any simpler.

      Also because they are simpler. Smash a rock and a clock with a hammer, and what are the chances you get something useful of either things?
      Another reason is, that more complex life-forms are usually dependent on simpler ones.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    7. Re:I for one... by RsG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Depends on what the opposite is.

      Simple versus advanced, which is the way most people use the word, is plainly wrong when talking about biology. The myth of the "higher" and "lower" forms of life is one that persists in the public consciousness, but it's been rejected in scientific circles for the better part a century.

      Simple versus complex is a slightly different story. You can describe a multi-cellular organism as more complex in biological terms than a single-celled one in the same way you can say a personal computer is more complex than a single microchip. In those cases, complexity is a shorthand way of referring to the number of "parts" involved, be those parts organ systems or machine components.

      It's still not the preferred way of distinguishing the two, owing to the confusion it causes. When a biologist says "simple" people take it for granted that the opposite is "advanced", which is wrong.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    8. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll be hearing from our legal department in a few minutes. Thanks.

      - Monsanto Patent Vigilance Team

    9. Re:I for one... by RsG · · Score: 1

      You are implying something, which the grand-parent did not. simple is lesser, complex -> more advanced -> better.

      Perhaps I misunderstood him. In the event I did, I apologize, however my point stands for anyone else who agrees with the misconception I thought I saw in his post.

      So there are more complex lifeforms. Who said something about more advanced? Still, even more advanced wouldn't be wrong. It just means later in time or intricate.

      No, more advanced would in fact be wrong. So too would later in time - bacteria are older than us, not the other way around.

      What measure are you using for "advanced"? Intelligence, size, number of parts maybe? Those aren't what matters, biologically or evolutionarily. Those matter to us, because we are a large, intelligent species with a great many components, and we like to think of ourselves as "best". We place a moral imperative on intelligence, and then go looking for evidence to support it.

      That people implicate better or higher is the mistake, as you already put it correctly.

      Excellent, you understand. I don't need to belabour the point with you. But I want you to bear in mind that even here on slashdot this myth persists, so it is entirely reasonable for me to keep debunking it when it crops up.

      Also because they are simpler. Smash a rock and a clock with a hammer, and what are the chances you get something useful of either things?

      Not sure what you're trying to show with this metaphor. Are you saying smaller life forms are less fragile? Or was the metaphor intended to refer to the entire ecology, instead of life forms within it?

      Another reason is, that more complex life-forms are usually dependent on simpler ones.

      True, I did gloss over that point. But it's more applicable for something like an asteroid impact, which does far nastier things to plants than animal, eventually killing the later via starvation. In a nuclear event, the radiation damage affects every living thing; the smaller life forms come back first because they're the first the develop resistance. Its really more complex than that (what isn't?), but as short explanations go, it'll do.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    10. Re:I for one... by wamatt · · Score: 1

      There are no "simple" kinds of life. Dismiss that notion from your mind.

      False. An single-celled amoeba is more simple than a human. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity

    11. Re:I for one... by RsG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See here, where I make that point clear:

      Simple versus complex as opposed to simple versus advanced

      Perhaps the GP knew this and meant simple in that sense. I didn't read his post that way however, since he described plants and bacteria in the same breath as "simple", which is incorrect in several ways.

      Best comparison I can give you is this: A single celled organism is simpler than a multicellular one in the same way a microchip is simpler than a computer. To describe either as less advanced is obviously wrong, but it is fair to say the larger entity is more complicated than the smaller one.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    12. Re:I for one... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Simple life forms having only one cell type in opposite to complex life forms constructed by multiple specialized cell types.

      The simple cell forms only have to adapt one cell type to survive while the complex needs to adapt multiple cell types.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    13. Re:I for one... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Many plants have very large genomes. That's because plants are very old and have worked out genetic codes for a lot of different scenarios. They are by no means "simple"; they are some of the most complex organisms on earth.

      It would be interesting to find out how much of these changes are evolutionary changes and how much are already built into the plants(!)

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    14. Re:I for one... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Simple versus advanced, which is the way most people use the word, is plainly wrong when talking about biology. The myth of the "higher" and "lower" forms of life is one that persists in the public consciousness, but it's been rejected in scientific circles for the better part a century.
      Simple versus complex is a slightly different story.

      No matter which words you try to use, it will still boil down in people's minds as "which is the best?". That and the obsession with "the first" are things that you can't seem to educate out of people (probably because the education system is obsessed with the bests and the firsts).

      The thing about "lower" life is that it has been perfecting that simple form for longer than our advanced kind has existed. We may look at those immobile plants and think "ah! We can easily run circles around you!", but they have this "stay in place and bask in the sun" deal down. We adapt to radiation by running away, lest we get sick and die, they sit there and take it.

      We may be more "advanced", but they were here "first".

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    15. Re:I for one... by Clark+Can't · · Score: 1

      I share part of your very rational rejection of anthropocentric views, but I cannot aggree that intelligence is simply another survival mechanism. If for nothing else, for breaking your axiom of "the faster you breed, the more quickly you can adapt". That could be true for purely Darwinian evolution, but intelligence and the passing of information or culture among individuals can take evolution to a higher level of (more than) Lamarkian evolution.

      In other words, I think we adapted even quicker that plants, but putting on rad-suits or getting away from the area, and telling others about the danger. So, you see, sometimes our collective imagination and prejudices, as naive as they may seem, can still have significant logic.

      But, of course, we shouldn't become too confident. The collective dumbness of many "simple" little plants is still showing new tricks to our individual and colletive intelligence.

    16. Re:I for one... by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Life does not become more advanced. It becomes better adapted to the challenges. "Survival of the fittest" here means fit in the sense of adapted, not "superior" (which is one reason why the phrase is rarely used by people who know the subject well).

      Oh for heavens sake will you put this "we are all the same." The only reason evolution is taught like this is that left wingers didn't want capitalists to use evolution as an argument for laissez fair economics, and no one wanted evolution to be used as an excuse for genocide. It's a well intended lie, but its still a lie.

      The fact is, some things are better than others in the scope of their environment. Size brings complexity and with complexity comes a reduced pace of life and adaptation. We can manage the environment as individuals better than a bacteria could, but bacteria outsurvive us because they breed faster.

      --
      This is my sig.
    17. Re:I for one... by FooRat · · Score: 1

      Bigger life forms may be more complex in the sense of having more parts, or possessing intelligence, but they are not more advanced in any meaningful way.

      Highly evolved intelligence is not "more advanced in any meaningful way"? You must either know a different English to the one I'm familiar with, or live in a different Universe. You're just playing around with semantics in erudite language but saying nothing really. How can you claim what constitutes "advanced" anyway, are you God? You don't even know what our sentience means, nobody does, yet when you consider the Dawkins quote that "We are the Universe, thinking", and then together with that consider the very high possibilities of advanced machine and collective intelligences in our near future, you realise that something far, far more profound is underway than what you get with mere plants and bacteria.

    18. Re:I for one... by FooRat · · Score: 1

      When a biologist says "simple" people take it for granted that the opposite is "advanced", which is wrong.

      And yet somehow, there remains *some* quality that while intangible and difficult to pinpoint, most definitely exists and constitutes what we would ordinarily intuitively characterize as "advanced". How odd.

      Of *course* such a thing as "advanced" life exists; if it did not, we would all just look around puzzled when somebody used the term, and funnily enough, we don't --- in fact amazingly (for a concept that you say doesn't exist), we all know *exactly* what somebody means when they speak that way. Weird hey? Bringing up some domain-specific use of terminology does not negate that at all, and sorry, does not inherently mean that you have a higher level of understanding of life than the "mere" mortals around you. In fact, pretending the concept does not exist, when it does, is far more harmful to the discourse; instead, it would be more useful to try to find a systematic definition for what qualities our intuition is analyzing, and then rationally judging the validity of that, and, if Mr Pedantic really prefers, coming up with a new word for it.

      There is most cetainly a difference between "complex" and what we typically call "advanced", because it's possible for something to be *both* complex and un-advanced (primitive / stupid) - therefore your attempt to claim that the word we're looking for is "complex", is incorrect. And no, "advanced" is not subjective; it is possible to objectively say that we are more "advanced" than bacteria, and it doesn't just mean "more complex".

    19. Re:I for one... by FooRat · · Score: 1

      That people implicate better or higher is the mistake, as you already put it correctly.

      Nope, sorry, still not a mistake. Only a "mistake" from the pure genetics / biology viewpoint. But that isn't the only one that exists.

    20. Re:I for one... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Smash a rock and a clock with a hammer, and what are the chances you get something useful of either things?

      I dunno, but if you smash a hard drive with a hammer you get some pretty cool magnets. And broken ones and zeros all over the table.

    21. Re:I for one... by phizix · · Score: 1

      The human genome contains ~3 billion base pairs. E. coli, for instance, has only 4.6 million, a factor of ~1000 less. I will safely say that E. coli is a "simple" life form relative to humans.

    22. Re:I for one... by user315234 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I already called shotgun on dibs on the patent.

    23. Re:I for one... by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Plants without brains and tools will never be able to build spaceships and live in outer space all by themselves, even if they adapt faster to a changing environment, there is only so much they can adapt without a brain, it's hard to see a plant mutating into something that builds a spaceship. Intelligence is kind of necessary for life as a whole ecosystem to survive, and the more intelligent a life form, the more its responsibility to protect all of life, and all of the ecosystem that it oversees. Somehow top predators like polar bears, wolf packs and lions seem to instinctually excersize "intelligent" deep judgement in their environment to make sure everything is in balance and harmonious. They seem happy when everything is right, and sometimes will excersize self restraint, and self reduction, in order for the whole to survive, when they could go ahead and care only for themselves and thereby destroy the whole including themselves with it. That's what you would call an ecosystem failure, the loss of balance due to a predator without self control abusing its power. That kind of nuance is hard to notice, but true survivalist ecosystems are filled with top predators which happen to be "caring", or act in ways as if they were "caring", whether it'd be out of pure free will or simply an artifact and a necessity. As far as intelligent life goes, the breeding cycle is always going to be longer than for fast adapting plants because there is a considerable effort invested into training and teaching, transmitting an intelligent culture and rules that goes down the drain every time someone dies. Imagine if Newton, Faraday and Euler still lived today. Then again, I can imagine human life with a lifespan and breeding cycle of a few weeks, and really fast learning ability, while trees live for centuries. Imagine humans or intelligent lifeforms that go through K12 plus phd college in a matter of 3 days. Then they breed and die after a few weeks. Impossible?

      Humans as they are today may adapt slower biologically speaking because of a slower breeding cycle, but culturally, as a group, they may surpass plants in speed of adaptation. Just look at the industrial revolution. However humans breeding out of control and consuming all available resources without adapting to a long term sustainable way may cause their own demise. Spaceships, islands of existence for life, including plant life, not just humans, are like an absolute must anymore, before biotechnology really takes off. Biotech, the full understanding and control of what makes life, what makes all that ATGC tick, and finding Achilles heels of it, might create a complete extinction of life. We only have a single Biosphere right now, called planet Mutha Earf, and Biosphere2 was a failure of an experiment, and a business?(what's business got to do with it), because of inability to control oxygen levels in the atmosphere. It's important to create independent, unconnected ecosystems, simply for survival reasons. Don't keep all your eggs in the same basket, diversify your portfolio, genepool. Or else some simple bad luck event, such as an asteroid hitting the planet or a global nuclear war turns back the clock of evolution a couple million years. After a nuclear war It's gonna be a while before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans evolves into worms into fish into amphibians into dinosaurs into cats into people. If people really mess up, such as cooling the inner magma from liquid to solid state, and the Earth loses its magnetic shield then its protective atmosphere, then Earth may end up a place where even Deinococci cannot survive. Eventually our Sun will run out of fuel, even if we have a long time til it happens, there is only so many times the clock of evolution can turn back, with massive extinction events, and so many blind luck events for intelligent life to evolve, before there is no more time left, and no life at all. That's what you call a total failure of life. Some people don't car

    24. Re:I for one... by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Some of the genetic code plants haul around might be just garbage code commented out. Though it's somewhat energetically taxing to haul around a lot of garbage DNA and keep duplicating the unneeded sections, when energy is plenty and life is easy, there is no need to slim down.

    25. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except when we're talking about Paris Hilton

    26. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feed me Seymore!!!!!

    27. Re:I for one... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Obligatory

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    28. Re:I for one... by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      There are amoebas and toads that make humans look simple.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    29. Re:I for one... by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      "the faster you breed, the more quickly you can adapt". That could be true for purely Darwinian evolution...
      In other words, I think we adapted even quicker that plants, but putting on rad-suits or getting away from the area, and telling others about the danger.

      I think he was only talking about "adaptation" in the biological evolution/genetic sense of the word. A species that becomes radiation resistant and one that simply gets killed off in the affected area have both adapted in the general sense of the word, but I don't think that he was talking about "local extinction based geographical adaptation" (if that's the right phrase), even though it could easily happen much more quickly. Intelligence is that same way, when people use cultural adaptation they aren't biologically different, so they aren't adapting in the way he was using the word.

      I cannot agree that intelligence is simply another survival mechanism

      It may be quite unique, but (as far as we can tell) it really did develop as just another way to survive better.

    30. Re:I for one... by Clark+Can't · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with your last sentence!

      When I said that intelligence is "not simply" another survival mechanism, I wasn't making a statement on its origin (I'm an atheist, I don't believe in ID), but only on how much more powerful intelligence can be, compared to other more basic survival mechanisms.

      I don't agree, however, with the more general statement you made, implying that intelligence or behavior don't count as evolution, only biology does. I think evolution has no different rules depending on whether you get your competitive advantage from biology or from intelligence. The only thing that matters is if your genes are passed on, before you get killed.

      So, I don't see a divide between the biological and cultural responses, when it comes to evolution. I just see layers upon layers, and evolution working not only on biological levels, but also on individual behavior, and colletive behaviour, to the extent that whole peoples or cultures end up being subject to the same rules of evolution vs. extinction.

  3. Life goes on? by SultanCemil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Realistically, how was this not blindingly obvious?
    If you put a bunch of life forms into a high stress environment, evolution is going to happen quickly. Clearly, the gene for radiation resistance is going to quickly become prevalent in a population exposed to large amounts of radiation....

    Somewhere, Darwin smiles quietly.

    --
    Cemil.
    1. Re:Life goes on? by master5o1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      >Somewhere, Darwin smiles quietly.


      In his grave, maybe? Quietly because he's dead, perhaps?

      --
      signature is pants
    2. Re:Life goes on? by drolli · · Score: 1

      No! no! no! no!

      Creation "scientists" may conclude that the genes making the plant adoptable to radiation have been wisely designed.... How else could it work.....

    3. Re:Life goes on? by ljw1004 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sigh. "Blindingly obvious" is a silly comment on scientific studies.

      Was it blindingly obvious that 9% (rather than 8% or 10%) of proteins would be differently expressed? Was it blindingly obvious that the best working model so far for adaption involves glycinin, beta conglycinin, dehydrins, and glycine betaine?

      If these particular outcomes were blindingly obvious to you then you're a kook not a scientist.

      If these details don't seem important to you then you're a woolly thinker not a scientist.

    4. Re:Life goes on? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Realistically, how was this not blindingly obvious?
      If you put a bunch of life forms into a high stress environment, evolution is going to happen quickly. Clearly, the gene for radiation resistance is going to quickly become prevalent in a population exposed to large amounts of radiation....

      You're dramatically oversimplifying things. They weren't asking "will life adapt to these conditions?" Since they were studying plants that were growing in the area, they knew that much already. It was indeed blindingly obvious, they did all their experiments on the proof. They were instead asking "HOW did this life adapt." A much much more complex question. Turns out it's not one gene, and it's not even genes that can be lumped as "radiation resistance."

      The real article abstract(right here) points out that these plants aren't just adapted to one new stress.

      Our results suggest that adaptation toward heavy metal stress, protection against radiation damage, and mobilization of seed storage proteins are involved in plant adaptation mechanism to radioactivity in the Chernobyl region.

      That last stress itself is far from obvious, maybe plant experts would have guessed that would be a problem, but for me at least, I wouldn't have guessed that would be a major problem. But apparently it is, and the plants have overcome it. I would have guessed it would all be DNA damage.

      It also points out that of nearly 700 analyzed proteins, nearly 10% were expressed at different levels from I guess an uncontaminated stock. Far from one gene, seventy genes, apparently tweaked in just a few generations, not millions of years. Not blindingly obvious that evolution could work that fast on that many genes. At least not to me. I also have to point out, that as of yet they don't seem to have found any evidence that nature had to redesign any of the existing machinery, it seems rather that it just changed the levels of machinery made. That's far from certain, but it doesn't seem like it modified most of those 70 proteins, just the levels.

      I'm willing to bet that even though soybeans are an important crop, we don't know all there is to know about their molecular mechanisms of dealing with any of those three problems. And even if we did, we don't know how evolution is going to co-opt these systems to deal with new challenges. So examining the actual pathways will probably tell us a great deal about which proteins are involved in these pathways, if any are being used for new purposes. We might even be able to use something we learn there in human medicine, the new scientist article mentions one of the proteins protects human blood against radiation, if we find that one protein is really critical to helping the plants cope, maybe a drug can be developed that will increase the activity or abundance in that protein to help with radiation poisoning and maybe even help with cancer.

      HOW is extremely complicated, and they're just scratching the surface. It's fascinating, though not so much that I'm going to spend 30 dollars to read the article right now.

    5. Re:Life goes on? by yabos · · Score: 1

      Nah, he just evolved into a higher lifeform

    6. Re:Life goes on? by FooRat · · Score: 1

      I didn't see anyone expressing surprise that this happened.

    7. Re:Life goes on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Somewhere, Darwin smiles quietly." - by SultanCemil (722533) on Sunday May 17, @01:58AM (#27984633)

      I am smiling w/ he, because it is nice to know that SOMETHING GOOD may come of that terrible mishap... &, yes, it affects me directly, because some members of my family were horribly sick (& younger ones died because of the radiation of the Chernobyl accident, a nation away from where it happened).

      APK

    8. Re:Life goes on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bunch of worms ?

    9. Re:Life goes on? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      If you put a bunch of life forms into a high stress environment, evolution is going to happen quickly.

      Either that... or they all die off in short order....

      You know, one or the other...

      Both are good.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    10. Re:Life goes on? by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Or he just disappeared, stopped existing? Why is that so hard to imagine? Stopped existing as a complex functioning whole of its parts because the underlying structure disintegrated based on programming, it "died" to give way to the next generation? But hey, you never know, just as there is a way to construct a thing that does certain things and stores certain things in memory, and replicate it on many platforms, (ex. a webpage or Firefox runs the same on Intel and Mac and Linux and other underlying hardware), maybe there is something in the background that copies all your life experiences, all your memories, and when you die, or more exactly your body disintegrates, but your "soul" lives on, when that something in the background transmutes it into Nirvana or Heaven or whatever, and your soul lives on. It's a little hard to imagine, but reality is stranger than friction, and you never know. I am not aware of having a "soul", I can say I have a spirit, a set of behaviors that are independent of my "body", I am not my body, but different from it, and sometimes may act in ways that I, whatever I may be, feel are "right" but not in the best interest of my "body." Such as a soldier or worker bee stinging may act in ways that are not in the best interest of their body, but are essential and are in the best interest of life, or a subgroup of life they are protecting.

    11. Re:Life goes on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that Slashdotters are experts in all things and their armchair philosophic musings are infallible.

    12. Re:Life goes on? by Troed · · Score: 1

      I can say I have a spirit, a set of behaviors that are independent of my "body"

      Doubtful. Your brain belongs to your body and all your behaviours are encoded in the pathways of the brain. It's just a game of following the input signals, observing the outputs and realising there's not central processing "place" etc.

      Book suggestion: Consciousness : An Introduction - Susan Blackmore

      --
      it's in my head
    13. Re:Life goes on? by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      I meant here that the "self interest" of the spirit is independent of the "self interest" of the body. Survival is a very complex thing when more than one individual is involved. As I mentioned, worker bees for example. Their spirit, or their "self interest drive" is not focused on preserving their own body, but their hive. Btw, you can extend this beyond the very narrow yourself/body, to a spirit that labors in the interest of your spouse, your family, your relatives, your friends, your ethnic group, your nation, all humanity, all animal life, all eukaryote life (trying 2b funny here), all life. You are an animal too, and feel more compassion for another mammal hurting and bleeding than say a tree exuding some defensive wax. That's why we have animal torture laws, but we don't have plant torture laws. Even though some people might be very attached to some flowers they are growing but not attached at all to some mosquitoes biting them. It's okay to mass destruct even mammals that are causing you damage, such as field mice via baits, or mosquitoes.

    14. Re:Life goes on? by Troed · · Score: 1

      I meant here that the "self interest" of the spirit is independent of the "self interest" of the body

      Sure - it's about the genes & memes. There's absolutely no "spirit" involved anywhere though.

      --
      it's in my head
  4. future bias by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Funny

    future interplanetary travelers may one day need to grow crops to withstand space radiation.

    What about past interplanetary travelers? Will you not help them? Or are you so biased towards the entropic arrow of time, that you refuse to help those poor interplanetary travelers of the past? You Bastards! How do you sleep at night?

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:future bias by smchris · · Score: 1

      Crops? Space colonists would want to enhance these proteins in _themselves_. Think of the radiation on Mars. Maybe -- what are the side effects? Inquiring science fiction writers will want to know.
       

    2. Re:future bias by oldhack · · Score: 1

      "How do you sleep at night?"

      Last night was ok - don't remember much, really. I look forward to doing it again sometime in the future. Should I worry?

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  5. Well... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It beats bacterium gruel 24/7. Of course, you'd still need to do something about the less than radiation resistant astronauts. I suppose it would be much easier to shield a small habitation pod, than to shield a greenhouse, so that would probably be doable.

    It would be interesting, though, to know how difficult it would be to produce human populations with various useful astronaut properties. Unfortunately, most of what you would want to do would involve running right over the medical ethics cliff and into some dubious stuff. You'd pretty much want a bunch of dwarves(transporting mass out of a gravity well is very expensive) with slow metabolisms(ditto) and high radiation tolerance and possibly some sort of Myostatin related mutation that would allow them to preserve muscle mass in low gravity. I can't think of any sort of genetic engineering or selective breeding that would achieve that end, without getting into rather dubious ground.

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

      it's called cybernetics.

    2. Re:Well... by wisty · · Score: 5, Funny

      Slashdotters have already been selected to survive with extreme sensory deprivation, and muscle atrophy. If they could only be bred ...

    3. Re:Well... by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Funny

      bred?! you backwards hick we will be CLONED

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Well... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Interesting

      IIRC, that plan eventually backfired on the Asgard.

    5. Re:Well... by ijakings · · Score: 1

      Well, for some of them.

    6. Re:Well... by Ardeaem · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except we couldn't deal with the slow internet on the space station. Slashdot would take forever to load, especially if your fellow slashdotter/astronaut is downloading porn via bittorrent in the next module...

    7. Re:Well... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "bred?! you backwards hick we will be CLONED"

      Backwards hick???
      Ah shewed this tew Mom an' Uncle Dad.
      Yew owe them 'en apology.

      We ain't clones, but our family tree is straight as an arrow.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:Well... by thepotoo · · Score: 1

      If you're advanced enough to create viable clones, solve the telomerase problem, and transfer your consciousness from one brain to another, you're advanced enough to solve the replicative fading problem.

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    9. Re:Well... by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      screw cloning, I'm having my consciousness transferred into a computer (a set of bash scripts to be precised), that way they only need to shield the ram & ssd enclosure!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    10. Re:Well... by FooRat · · Score: 1

      Donate sperm.

    11. Re:Well... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      You'd pretty much want a bunch of dwarves(transporting mass out of a gravity well is very expensive)

      For God's sake man, are you seriously considering some advanced form of dwarf-tossing? Have you no ethics?

    12. Re:Well... by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      The Asgard's problem was that their science extended to other areas, and each of the clones was DRMed to hell and so they couldn't recover the original copies when the servers went offline.

    13. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the Assguard basically evolved from basement dwelling nerds that couldn't get any? Huh. Who woulda thought?

    14. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I often wondered why NASA and other space agencies don't make use of amputees in their manned space programs. Legs aren't nearly so important in microgravity as they are on the ground, but they take up a fair bit of weight and volume in the launch vehicle.

      Also, astronauts are often recruited from the ranks of military pilots, and piloting jet fighters can be a dangerous business. I imagine there are more than a few modern Douglas Bader types out there who'd (metaphorically) jump at the chance.

    15. Re:Well... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      <xml>
      <not enough weed today>
      Real men upload their consciousness uploaded in the form of zsh scripts, with inline emacs commands if there is enough memory, you insensitive clod!
      </not enough weed today>
      </xml>

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  6. Not just in space, either.... by macraig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    future interplanetary travelers may one day need to grow crops to withstand space radiation."

    This may be needed planet-side on occasion, as well, since not all planetary bodies we might consider as a home have the same aggressive magnetosphere that our own homeworld does: Mars has no better than a patchwork magnetosphere, and what of our own Moon? If we expect to grow plants in "biodomes" for food and use natural sunlight for photosynthesis, then those plants may have to be adapted to accepting something closer to the full brunt of that radiation than they have to endure on the face of this rather well-shielded marble.

    1. Re:Not just in space, either.... by RsG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mars has no better than a patchwork magnetosphere, and what of our own Moon? If we expect to grow plants in "biodomes" for food and use natural sunlight for photosynthesis, then those plants may have to be adapted to accepting something closer to the full brunt of that radiation than they have to endure on the face of this rather well-shielded marble.

      One word: Mirrors.

      This is mostly applicable to the moon; mars is a different story. Direct lunar sunlight would be bad for plants anyway; it's much more intense than it is here on earth.

      So, you make your biodome entirely underground, and use reflective surfaces to direct a portion of the light from above to where the crops are. The light is more diffuse that way, which as mentioned is a good thing, and your plants aren't exposed to as much ionizing radiation.

      Of course, how you get through two weeks of lunar night is a separate problem. You'd likely need lamps to provide light for those times.

      For martian colonies, the radiation problem is at least reduced by distance, and very slightly attenuated by an atmosphere. You'd likely want plants that can survive on very thin sunlight, or failing that, you'd want to provide artificial light to make up the difference. Unlike the moon, I suspect you'd be alright setting up a dome on the surface without being fried.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Not just in space, either.... by macraig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Martian surface isn't much more hospitable than the Moon, with respect to radiation. Its atmosphere is of no consequence, but it's really the absence of a magnetosphere that matters. Earth's magnetosphere is really what holds the life-blood of this planet in place, INCLUDING the atmosphere... without it, the solar wind would long ago have stripped our atmosphere away, just as happened to Mars. (That, BTW, is why it's so funny when people muse about terraforming Mars and recreating an atmosphere, because any such effort would have to start with the creation of a magnetosphere like Earth's, which we have no chance in Hell of doing.)

      This planet's magnetosphere - those pretty shimmers in the night sky - is really the ONE thing that made life (in the forms it's taken) possible here.

    3. Re:Not just in space, either.... by Repossessed · · Score: 3, Informative

      Martian surface radiation is only 12 REM a year. Higher than standard on earth, but not significantly more than a typical coal miner gets. It's thin and pathetic atmosphere, such as it is, still blocks half the radiation that comes at it, and the radiation is halved again by the planet itself.

      And Mars lost its atmosphere primarily because its volcanic activity ceased, and its now unable to replenish what it loses. The same thing would happen to Earth eventually, even if it was slower, without our own volcanoes. A magnetosphere isn't necessary at all, Venus has a very weak magnetosphere, resulting only from its atmosphere's interaction with the background/solar radiation, but it has a much thicker atmosphere.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    4. Re:Not just in space, either.... by RsG · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've seen both explanations for the disparity in atmospheres, and I'm inclined to think both have merit.

      Venus has more to separate it than volcanism. Earth, which is its closest neighbour in size, has a moon, and very likely gained it by way of an ancient collision some 3-4 billion years ago. The atmosphere would have been blown away, reforming at a reduced density after the fact. Moreover, it's possible the moon itself may have skimmed off some of the upper atmosphere over hundreds of millions of years. Venus has had no similar events, leading to an atmosphere that's only gotten thicker.

      Mars, which is much smaller than either, has two moons, frequent asteroid collisions (though none as violent as the one that led to our moon), and a cooling interior leading to reduced volcanism and the failure of the magnetic field. When it comes to explaining mars' relative lack of air, any of the above could be contributing factors.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    5. Re:Not just in space, either.... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That, BTW, is why it's so funny when people muse about terraforming Mars and recreating an atmosphere, because any such effort would have to start with the creation of a magnetosphere like Earth's, which we have no chance in Hell of doing.

      Given that it took anywhere from tens to hundreds of thousands of years to strip away the Martian atmosphere - we no more need to recreate a magnetosphere to terraform Mars than I need my own oil well to keep my car running. I just fill 'er up every time my gas tank runs low.

  7. Shielding? by w0mprat · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd rather the space hotel I visit would have adequate shielding, than require radiation resistance plants for it's hydroponic salad.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:Shielding? by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Just don't order the steak and you'll be fine...

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    2. Re:Shielding? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      Although clearly made in jest, that is an excellent point. I think, though, that the idea is that people are mobile and able to compact into a small place, while plants really aren't.

      If a bad radiation storm is coming you can have everyone hole up in a small protected compartment, rather than protecting the whole ship, which would be devastating on the weight of the vehicle. However, presumably hydroponics would be fairly large area, and it would be much harder to provide protection for that over a long flight, so finding another way around it would make the vehicle much easier to design.

  8. Irradiated Food by carlzum · · Score: 1

    These guys are going to starve in outer space.

  9. Public Perceptions by copponex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Many people believe that any radioactive event will render an area lifeless for tens of thousands of years. Similarly, the fear of a "dirty bomb" persists, despite the fact that surviving the initial blast represents less increased risk of cancer than smoking cigarettes or having a poor diet. There would be possibly huge cleanup costs, but probably cheaper than a few weeks in Iraq.

    1. Re:Public Perceptions by SultanCemil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah it does seem a little strange that people worry so much about dirty bombs. Surely the toxins in the environment (or hell, diet coke) do more damage to more people....

      --
      Cemil.
    2. Re:Public Perceptions by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People fear risks that are imposed upon them more than they fear risks that they take on themselves. See fear of cars vs. fear of aircraft.

      Also, the cynic might suggest that most people see the "war on terror" in all its excesses, as a much lighter burden than a good diet and some exercise...

    3. Re:Public Perceptions by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      the media has a lot to answer for imho, it's the same reporting that has people believing that a single fibre of asbestos will kill you, when in fact the stuff is everywhere being brought up by natural springs etc since forever.

      people will squeal like stuck pigs about food colourings, radiation, asbestos, CO2 (hah seriously) and then they will pop open a diet coke and eat some geneticly enhanced chicken mcnuggets.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Public Perceptions by RsG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Food colouring? That was kinda random.

      Asbestos has less to do with the dangers it poses, and more to do with the way we used it freely decades ago. People do overreact, but it's a response to a time in which the stuff was used for everything down to cigarette butts.

      I'll agree with you on radiation though. There are far too few people who know enough about physics and biology to understand the problem rationally. Moreover, I think we as a culture are still stinging from the cold war, and the notion that we might one day face the reality of widespread fallout. "Nuclear" is still a dirty word.

      Side note: you mentioned genetically engineered chicken as something people hypocritically don't worry about. That isn't the case in my experience; genetic engineering is becoming the new nuke in the eyes of the public. Google "frankenfood", or look at the popularity of food advertised as being free of engineering, in the same breath as advertising it free of pesticides and hormones.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    5. Re:Public Perceptions by threephaseboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Food colouring? That was kinda random.

      Not really

      --
      .
    6. Re:Public Perceptions by Silicon+Jedi · · Score: 2, Informative

      So Mountain Dew causes Anxiety, Depression, and Insomnia....

    7. Re:Public Perceptions by soupforare · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only when I run out

      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
    8. Re:Public Perceptions by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Many people believe that any radioactive event will render an area lifeless for tens of thousands of years.

      "Hiroshima is contaminated with radiation. It will be barren of life and nothing will grow for 75 years." These words were spoken in an interview with Dr. Harold Jacobsen, a scientist with the Manhattan Project (the A-bomb development project), and printed in the Washington Post on August 8, 1945.

      In Hiroshima, they have that quote on a plaque at the foot of a tree, scorched from the bottom up to a point where it had been broken by the blast, and with the trunk having re-sprouted there and having grown into a full canopy since.

      Scientists are sometimes wrong in their assumptions.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    9. Re:Public Perceptions by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop eating...EVERYTHING!

      This whole GE bit is nonsense and drives me up the wall. We've been doing it for thousands of years with domestication, selective breeding, and tightly controlled pollination methods. Hello Mr. common moo-moo cow, common yellow banana(ever eaten a seeded banana? blah), flightless chicken, stupid turkey, various improved breeds of corn, wheat, rice, and rye.

      Greetings Man's Best Friend, I realize we've been improving your species for the last 10,000yrs for various reasons. Still friends right?

      Special interest groups, and the media need to dig their heads out of their asses.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Public Perceptions by radtea · · Score: 1

      various improved breeds

      Sensible people who are in favour of GE labelling are in it for one thing: we'd like to be able to not choose commercially owned monoculture species.

      It has nothing to do with personal health, and everything to do with not wanting to contribute more than we have to toward the coming argi-ecological disaster. Bananas are the obvious example to illustrate this cautionary tale, but beef is almost as bad due to the tiny number of bulls used for artificial insemination, and GE foods are a pure example of stupid humans trying to beat the Red Queen by standing still.

      Unfortunately idiots have made a lot of noise about the imagined health effects of GE foods, and the dishonest shills on the other side have latched onto those straw people and completely ignored the perfectly legitimate concerns of people like me, who don't want to contribute any more to the coming disaster than we have to.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    11. Re:Public Perceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yellow 5 may NOT be used in any substances if not approved first, drinks such as Mountain Dew and Sprite will not effect a human unless they drink 8+ cans per day everyday.

    12. Re:Public Perceptions by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      People fear cancer, perhaps more than any other disease. Plenty of things will kill you, but cancer is cancer...

      Telling someone that a terrorist can give you cancer by setting off a bomb from which you are completely safe, blast-wise, is a terrifying thought. The reality is obviously far less interesting (as other posters point out), but the concept is no less terrifying for that.

      I was pretty scared by Event Horizon, even though I don't plan on teleporting through hyperspace...

    13. Re:Public Perceptions by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sensible people who are in favour of GE labelling are in it for one thing: we'd like to be able to not choose commercially owned monoculture species.

      I take it that you don't eat bananas(feel free to pick one of several different varieties however, just remember the common banana was a genetic mistake), one of the three main staples of rice, or one of the 5 modern varieties of potatoes(even though there are 50 grown around the world for consumption). Let alone any of the modern types of rye or wheat then. Without GEing food, you're left with one thing a population that can't feed itself by introducing varieties that produce large and more bountiful yields or are more resistant to whatever issues that are cropping up.

      You may or may not know this, but the common cow species we have now, was bred out of a very vicious version about 4,000 years ago. Anyway, I'm not sure where you're getting the bull insemination bit from, but up here in wonderful Canada land(where cows outnumber people), we have somewhere in the range of 5-10:1 in breeding stocks, same with sheep. This ensures a wide genetic variety in stocks, especially outside of the herds.

      Genetic diversity changes more quickly in plant populations then you'd expect, even with us attempting to modify plants(try breeding roses sometime) via forced and non-forced breeding. If you're not trying to increase yields to let people eat, and support a population. We might as well go back to "Positive population checks" aka death, famine, and war while we're at it. Personally, I'm not one to say sorry folks but we only have enough food for 4b people, time to draw straws and let 2b starve to death. Are you?

      Sadly you've only got one choice, but you're not going to end up with a single genetic monoculture for a plant species. To think that, you're being naive. We already know what happens when you do that.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    14. Re:Public Perceptions by RudeIota · · Score: 1

      despite the fact that surviving the initial blast represents less increased risk of cancer than smoking cigarettes or having a poor diet

      Cancer isn't the killer, it's acute radiation poisoning which sterilizes your gonads, destroys your digestive system and reduces or eliminates your ability to create new blood cells.

      I guess all of this really depends on the size of the dirty bomb, but at the very least it doesn't take much to make people violently ill.

      --
      Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
    15. Re:Public Perceptions by Wingman+5 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your average doorm room to me.

    16. Re:Public Perceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop eating...EVERYTHING!

      This whole GE bit is nonsense and drives me up the wall. We've been doing it for thousands of years with domestication, selective breeding, and tightly controlled pollination methods. Hello Mr. common moo-moo cow, common yellow banana(ever eaten a seeded banana? blah), flightless chicken, stupid turkey, various improved breeds of corn, wheat, rice, and rye.

      Greetings Man's Best Friend, I realize we've been improving your species for the last 10,000yrs for various reasons. Still friends right?

      Special interest groups, and the media need to dig their heads out of their asses.

      No offense, but are you dense?

      There's a LARGE difference between breeding of plants/animals via *natural* methods and laboratory methods - chopping up genetic material, inserting it into bacterial or viral vectors, and then using those to change the genetic makeup of the target item.

      It is possible that one day genetic engineering will be safe - but we don't have the data now, and scientists constantly are startled by phenotypical blowback from genes considered inconsequential.

    17. Re:Public Perceptions by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      No offense, but are you dense?

      There's a LARGE difference between breeding of plants/animals via *natural* methods and laboratory methods - chopping up genetic material, inserting it into bacterial or viral vectors, and then using those to change the genetic makeup of the target item.

      Depends are you? You do realize that there isn't much of a difference between using the old method of straining plants, and using direct genetic manipulation right? Of course, you don't see GE'd crops that are spliced with fish and wheat. Know why? That's right, it has to do with the fact that we don't allow the public to eat our experiments. Something called ethical standards. However, the use of shell injection with new genetic material for into public consumption is, and is very highly controlled. More so than the OTC, and prescription meds that you buy.

      The current round of GE crops that are manufactured are...shockingly hybridization of the same species. I don't know about you, but if we can go from using strain(up to 120 plant generations with a 85/90% failure rate), to 12-25 generations with a 40-60% failure rate to produce something that has a triple yield, and can resist disease/insects. I believe it's worth it. If you don't, better tell Mexico, India, and China they were better off starving to death when we started the green revolution.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  10. Rad-X by pgn674 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if that protein could be used to make real world Rad-X as from the Fallout series?

    1. Re:Rad-X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to Rad-Away, which would remove the contamination rather than preventing it.

      Rad-X and Rad-Away were overrated in Fallout, imho. Rarely any need for them.

    2. Re:Rad-X by cynvision · · Score: 1

      I think Seaquest DSV had a race of nuke-resistant soldier-slaves. The idea had appeal to TV writers back in the day. IIRC that TV show was around just about the time Chernobyl went poof!

      --
      "I got it all together but I forgot where I put it."
    3. Re:Rad-X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's gonna be really amusing when the Fallout series proves to be a future simulator instead of an alternative reality for entertainment purposes. :-D

  11. Oblig. by Sepiraph · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our Triffids Overlords!

  12. This is proof of the existence of God by taustin · · Score: 1

    Cuz the accident was clearly an act of God intended to demonstrate his intelligent design skills. Must have been, cuz we all know that it couldn't be a natural evolution in response to a changing environment.

    I predict that at least 50% of the people reading this will think I'm serious, despite this disclaimer. This is /., after all. (And another 25% will pretend to think that, just for the troll value.)

    1. Re:This is proof of the existence of God by RsG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know you're joking, but it's stories like this I want to show genuine creationists. Just to see if they can weasel out of it.

      Of course, the ones with half a working brain already preempted the point by imagining a distinction between micro and macro evolution. Note that there is no such distinction in reality, but imagining there is can provide a handy way of dismissing actual evidence of evolution in action. A variant of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

      This method is proof that creationist ideas can evolve, which I find deliciously ironic - when subjected to selection pressure, they develop new mechanisms of denial to cope. :-P

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:This is proof of the existence of God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, their refutals were created by god and then whispered to them by angels. /sarcasm

      But, alternately thought isn't an evolving thing like life, unless you want to add "intelligence" to the model. Bad metaphor I think.

      As for me, I don't really care if evolution or creationism are accepted/believed by anyone. I've met too many people that just accept what they're told if it comes from the right mouth. Science and biology teachers were no exception. People not thinking for themselves can have worse effects than ignorance, imho.

    3. Re:This is proof of the existence of God by shermo · · Score: 1

      This method is proof that creationist ideas can evolve, which I find deliciously ironic - when subjected to selection pressure, they develop new mechanisms of denial to cope.

      Much like the current crop of religions have managed to out-compete older, less fit religions.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    4. Re:This is proof of the existence of God by Dunavant · · Score: 1

      The article says adaptation, not evolution. As another reader pointed out earlier ( http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1235689&cid=27985471 ) there doesn't appear to be any new proteins or any new machinery evolving here. Simply changes in the levels of the existing proteins. I'm not paying $30 to view the article and see if they have found any proteins that did not previously exist. If there were no changes however then this is probably not the gun you want to be bringing to that fight.

  13. Radiation resistant humans . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    . . . is the next step in this study, I guess. If we were all radiation resistant, we could ditch fossil fuels and switch to nuclear.

    Radioactive waste? I eat it for breakfast.

    And my stomach functions as a breeder reactor, so my shit can be used to generate even more power.

    Top that.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Radiation resistant humans . . . by RsG · · Score: 3, Funny

      Radioactive waste? I eat it for breakfast.

      You really shouldn't be going to Taco Bell that early in the day.

      And my stomach functions as a breeder reactor, so my shit can be used to generate even more power.

      Does that mean the nearest bathroom goes China syndrome around lunchtime?

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  14. Be of Good Cheer~ by Suzuran · · Score: 1

    Okuu? Is that you?

  15. Ob BBC by mr_3ntropy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' --BBC News





    No, seriously.

    1. Re:Ob BBC by aethelwyrd · · Score: 1

      The study, which recorded 1,570 birds from 57 species, found that the number of birds in the most contaminated areas declined by 66% compared with sites that had normal background radiation levels. It also reported a decline of more than 50% in the range of species as radiation levels increase.

      While not a desolate wasteland it doesn't sound like paradise.

    2. Re:Ob BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so numbers are declining. The question is will what's left be more resistant and thrive in the long term ? The very fact there are survivors is reason to be hopeful from an evolutionary perspective. But 20 years is to short to make any such analysis.

  16. Fixed it for you by mac1235 · · Score: 1

    It's called robotics.

  17. E-I-E-I-D'OH! by Barradrewda · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally, tomacco!

  18. Not Surprising by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    Rats and other small animals captured in Pripryat have been known to have genes that are resilient to radiation. [citation not handy] I don't see how this is news.

    --
    The game.
  19. Heavy Metal by euice · · Score: 1

    Results from the study suggest that adaptation toward heavy metal stress, protection against radiation damage.

    I knew it, I KNEW IT! Did they name a band?

  20. recreational substances by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    Anyone care to post whether there is any "beneficial" or adverse effect of long-term radiation exposure on marijuana, 'shrooms, or banana peels? After all, once space travel is in common use, there will, eventually, be ethyl alcohol (none of that synthehol crap, either) and other recreational substances along for the ride.

    Maybe that's what the "hemp movement" needs: to show that in addition to rope, clothes, etc. that the plant is a good terraformer for some environment.

  21. Seems to be spreading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what i can see here: www.wuala.com/chernobyl/

    Plants seem to be growing and overtaking abandoned buildings and etc. Pretty hard to tell apart Pripyat from a local forest in some areas

  22. Politically Correct? by The+Pirou · · Score: 1

    Politically Correct? That's a communist ideal. Surely if he intended to be politically correct he would not be aiming to emulate the same people he purportedly loathes. As for bombing, surely you're referring to nuclear acts that are TRULY aimed at a peaceful use, more so than PNET. I'm assuming (making an *** out of u and me) that you are obviously looking forward to the potential benefits derived from radiation tolerant flora for the potential betterment of mankind as a whole. That assumed, maybe you're a radiation tolerant plant zealot, and you think said plants will be even BETTER than the GM plants we're so enthusiastic about now. So what you're saying in your poorly worded manifest, is that you really hope that we can help out foreign nations by effectively disarming our US stockpiles and putting the nuclear material to good use making super plants that feed everyone and have more practical applications than the peanut? Yes?

  23. now all we need is radiation resistant people by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    to eat them.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  24. Never mind by PPH · · Score: 1

    At first, I read that as "radiation-resistant pants", which would have been useful.

    I guess we could use radiation-resistant fig leafs.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  25. Largest nuclear disaster? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    If you want to examine the long-term effects of the world's largest nuclear disaster, you don't look at Chernobyl, you look at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:Largest nuclear disaster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to examine the long-term effects of the world's largest nuclear disaster, you don't look at Chernobyl, you look at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      Hiroshima's radiation levels are almost normal if not normal. The bombs were designed to give a huge blast, not leave the area irradiated.

    2. Re:Largest nuclear disaster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By definition, the area would be irradiated, but it would not be contaminated as the amount of radioactive material produced is quite small compared to the contents of an exploding nuclear reactor.

  26. So what you're saying is.... by Aurisor · · Score: 1

    words mean different things depending on context?

    Fascinating.

  27. Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chernobyl did not experience a meltdown. It exploded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

  28. Speed of evolution by nemo136 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one to be astounded at the speed of evolution ???? twenty years means around 20 generation for soya I'd guess. Evolution working at such speed is incredible. This means the proteins were already available somewhere in the genome, which means that, at some point evolution faced this situation for a long period. Or that modern genomes can generate new useful proteins at an incredible speed !!!!

  29. No replication.... No dose response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although I am a "believer" in the position that low dose radioactive contaminants have significant biological consequences I am quite disappointed in this paper for several reasons. The paper only shows that soy bean growing under different conditions of contamination have different protein expression patterns. Period. There is no evidence to show any of the patterns of differential expression are "adaptive" in any way. "Adpative" might imply that the plants are doing better as a consequence of the changes in protein expression. However, the authors present no data in support of this notion. All they show is that there are differences in protein expression when the same plant type is grown under different conditions. I am certain one would see significant differences in protein expression if the plants were grown under different nutrient conditions or temperature or water, etc.

    Also, there was no replication in this study and thus the observed differences could reflect any number of other variables that differ between the two plots that were more than 60 miles apart. Given differences in soil, nutrients, etc, perhaps it isn't surprising to see 10% of the proteins being expressed at different levels. We just don't know unless the experiment is replicated at several locations preferably at a variety of contamination levels as well. Clearly a dose response relationship would go a long way towards supporting a radiation hypothesis.

    That said, I am happy these folks are pursuing this line of investigation I hope the next batch of experiments will be much more scientifically rigorous.

  30. Not a meltdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chernobyl accident was not a nuclear meltdown. It was a steam explosion caused by loss of control of the reactor.

  31. Radiation resistant by Meski · · Score: 1

    Depending on your definition of radiation, all plants could be considered radiation resistant. (solar radiation?)