Slashdot Mirror


Plants Near Chernobyl Adapt To Contaminated Soil

lbalbalba writes "In April 1986, a nuclear reactor at the Chernobyl power plant in Ukraine exploded and sent radioactive particles flying through the air, infiltrating the surrounding soil. Despite the colossal disaster, some plants in the area seem to have adapted well, flourishing in the contaminated soil."

293 comments

  1. Obligatory... by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    Feed me, Seymour!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open wide, bitch.

    2. Re:Obligatory... by ben_kelley · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't work. It must be blood, and it must be .... fresh.

    3. Re:Obligatory... by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Funny

      Kind of what I was thinking, but not quite. I was suddenly hearing the song, "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" in my head....

      --

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

    4. Re:Obligatory... by polle404 · · Score: 1
      --

      ~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
  2. Wasn't this predicted by ChipMonk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    in "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind"?

    Adapt or die.

    1. Re:Wasn't this predicted by houghi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obviously He has made the plants smart enough to make that selection. Intelligent Design and all, you know?

      (Ok, going to get modded troll for this or burn in hell.)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Wasn't this predicted by siddesu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, and also I remember the number of articles on slashdot about how wildlife was thriving there, which were then totally debunked.

      Then, when real research was carried out, wild animals turned out to have shorter lifespans, all kinds of genetic diseases, have smaller litter, more defective offspring and generally be much less healthy than elsewhere.

      If I had to bet, I'd bet this new "research" has about as much validity as the brouhaha about the Przhevalsky horses in 2002.

      But hey, the sexy chick on the motorcycle was cool.

    3. Re:Wasn't this predicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather die than adapt to the one-sentence-per-paragraph writing style they use in the article. Argh!

    4. Re:Wasn't this predicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Ok, going to get modded troll for this or burn in hell.)

      Isn't that the same thing?

    5. Re:Wasn't this predicted by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Not... exactly, but in a way, yes. For a more elaborate explanation, read the manga version of Nausicaa. Or just read it because it rules, like the movie does. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Wasn't this predicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that movie any better than Spirited Away? I hated that one and it has kept me from watching the Nausicaa movie.

    7. Re:Wasn't this predicted by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Made me smile! Nothing else to smile about here so I think you should wear your Troll badge with honor.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    8. Re:Wasn't this predicted by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      A nuclear waste land or a concentrated minefield (Korean DMZ) may not be as safe and healthy as a pristine environment but it seems to me that the absence of humans is causing animals and plants to "thrive" in these areas ("thrive" in the sense that the overall poulation increases).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:Wasn't this predicted by cynyr · · Score: 1

      ALL HAIL HIS HOLY NOODLELYNESS!!!!

      And some more stuff to get past the the "CAPS is yelling" filter. This should about do it.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    10. Re:Wasn't this predicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, being able to survive isn't exactly the definition of thriving, and a minefield is much less risky to smaller animals than it is to humans; comparing it to irradiated zone doesn't even make sense.

    11. Re:Wasn't this predicted by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why wouldn't have he done that? I don't think intelligent design or creation is claiming that evolution doesn't exist at all, in fact, it would be logical that it's needed to ensure the survival of the lifeform. They are just claiming creation instead of speciation and nothing in this article suggests that the soybeans are now potatoes or something.

      Or am I missing something?

    12. Re:Wasn't this predicted by e70838 · · Score: 1

      Are you crazy ?
      What has been debunked is the theory that the area would remain lifeless for generations.
      The fact is that ecosystem is more developed now than it was before 1986 (in average). There are a lot more big mammals and even plants are thriving.
      Plants and wild animals are a lot healthier than expected. Of course, they are not as healthy as in clean areas, they have shorter lifespans, they suffer from the radioactivity. That is not the point. The point is that they are healthier THAN EXPECTED. Nobody, even the more optimist did anticipate that.

    13. Re:Wasn't this predicted by teh+kurisu · · Score: 2

      In my opinion, yes, far better (although you have to account for the fact that it was made in 1984 so it's not as slickly made as Spirited Away).

      The Nausicaä anime still only covers a small part of the full story that you get with all 7 manga books though, and it does give the impression of not quite being finished. And there's *that* scene at the end that Miyazaki was never happy with.

      It's worth putting up with the English dub for at least one viewing though, because Yupa is voiced by Patrick Stewart.

      In my opinion Princess Mononoke is still the best Miyazaki film. It stands on its own two feet better than Nausicaä does.

    14. Re:Wasn't this predicted by siddesu · · Score: 1

      I am not crazy, you're uninformed and quite rude.

      Nobody has said the area will become lifeless for generations, only mostly uninhabited by people for generations. That is still the case, and isn't changing for the foreseeable future.

      The rest of your comment is just rehashing the debunked theorizing from the early years about some miraculous wildlife recovery, probably colored with your own expectations.

      The expectations of everyone else with a modicum of knowledge about the consequences of radiation -- for a sea of sick animal and plant life -- are more or less on par.

    15. Re:Wasn't this predicted by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Well, being able to survive isn't exactly the definition of thriving,

      For humans, it isn't. For animals it is, at least if it's reasonably long-term sustainable.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    16. Re:Wasn't this predicted by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really.
      The predictions used to involve everything bigger than rats keeling over and nothing but the most hardy stuff surviving in the contaminated areas.
      They've gradually changed to reflect reality and the nature of radioactive decay.
      Feel free to forget that though and pretend you always expected exactly what happened.

      As it turned out an area contaminated by radation appears to be far more hospitable to wildlife than an area heavily populated by humans.

      And humans do live in the exclusion zone.
      Not many but some do.

    17. Re:Wasn't this predicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    18. Re:Wasn't this predicted by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      For which part?
      For humans living in the exclusion zone read anything about the area.
      There's apparently about 400 people who either refused to leave or moved back later.

      For exagerated claims about how the area was going to be an inhospitable wasteland read any current greenpeace article on the matter or read some old newspapers from the late 1980's.

      As for the silly claims by the poster I replied to he might be interested to know they're planning to resettle large sections of the exclusion zone.
      http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Chernobyl_repopulation.pdf

    19. Re:Wasn't this predicted by siddesu · · Score: 1

      BS. There were no claims like those you make in any newspaper in the affected countries in the 80s. If anything, the accident was heavily downplayed, and that after being denied for months.

      Real information about the size of the problem became available to the public three or four years after the accident.

      As for the consideration of Belarus to resettle these areas -- well, if you really think the government of Lukashenko is a beacon of good governance, concerned with the well-being of his people, there is little we can talk about.

    20. Re:Wasn't this predicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the word debunked means what you think it means. Some took the original studies as a demonstration that radioactivity resistance could be evolved quickly, or at least be already there, which seems to be the case with the plants here.

      The latter articles showed it was the fact that humans are far worse than noticeable amounts of cancer inducing dust. Wildlife is indeed thriving there, when compared to the other 99.9% of the globe, so nothing but some interpretations of the results was actually debunked.

    21. Re:Wasn't this predicted by Talderas · · Score: 1

      And humans do live in the exclusion zone.
      Not many but some do.

      I like to call them stalkers.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    22. Re:Wasn't this predicted by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      that was my first thought!

    23. Re:Wasn't this predicted by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      "in the affected countries in the 80s"

      However in the rest of europe there was no shortage of bullshit.
      A few papers in ireland were quick to claim that the radioactive dust thrown into the atmosphere would be killing livestock as far away as the UK and ireland and that the entire area around the reactor would be a permanent lifeless wasteland.

      and I'm sure you know more about it than the government which had to deal with the fallout(literally) for years.

    24. Re:Wasn't this predicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just living up to your handle, that's all....

    25. Re:Wasn't this predicted by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      The Nausicaä anime still only covers a small part of the full story that you get with all 7 manga books though, and it does give the impression of not quite being finished. And there's *that* scene at the end that Miyazaki was never happy with.

      The manga was amazing -- I was lucky enough to find it at the local library.

      But what did Miyazaki-san not like about the scenes at the end of the movie? (The Google has failed me, sorry.)

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    26. Re:Wasn't this predicted by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      I didn't want to say earlier because the person I was replying to hadn't seen the film, but it was this scene (spoilers) that Miyazaki disliked. It plays out differently in the manga, probably more true to the way he intended.

    27. Re:Wasn't this predicted by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I didn't see the scene as overtly religious -- and Spirited Away is full of gods and demons, so what would be the big deal? Though I guess there's a big difference between a bathhouse full of minor gods, versus the more Western monotheistic understanding of God. Very interesting.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    28. Re:Wasn't this predicted by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Again, there were no doomsday predictions in serious literature, in the East, or in the West, at the time, or post-Chernobyl. In particular, there were no serious claims that "everything but the rats" will die out in the affected zone in Chernobyl.

      As far as I can see, even initial predictions about the dosages and effects, published in the West as early as mid-1986 (numerous publications in Nature, etc.) have been decidedly not sensational.

      As I said to the GP already, some people, who rely on tabloid knowledge may have had their views colored, but there is a lot of bullshit flying on any topic.

      One such piece of bullshit was about "nature thriving" in Chernobyl in spite of the radiation, when, in fact, nature was and still is faring worse than thriving because of the radiation.

      As for the paper you quote -- well -- coming from a person who seriously believes that radiation exposure is beneficial, and has been called out on bad science many times -- certainly doesn't lend you credibility.

    29. Re:Wasn't this predicted by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      "One such piece of bullshit was about "nature thriving" in Chernobyl in spite of the radiation, when, in fact, nature was and still is faring worse than thriving because of the radiation."

      You mean how it's not as vibrant as in a pristine wildlife preserves?

      When people use terms like "in spite of" they generally don't mean it's helping.
      And plenty of species are doing pretty damn well in spite of the radiation.
      Also heavy metal contamination will do that too.

    30. Re:Wasn't this predicted by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, I read a couple more of Zbigniew's articles -- I understand how I was wrong, how radiation exposure is very beneficial for organisms, how global warming is a total hoax, how Earth is flat, and how Wojciech, Lukashenko, Kim and Fidel are wise leaders of their nations on the path to freedom and well-being.

      Wise sources indeed.

    31. Re:Wasn't this predicted by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      You appear to be replying to the voices in your head now rather than my post.

    32. Re:Wasn't this predicted by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The predictions used to involve everything bigger than rats keeling over and nothing but the most hardy stuff surviving in the contaminated areas.

      Whose predictions, published where and when? I've watched this case with passing interest for most of the last 2 and a half decades, and with more interest in the last half decade since marrying someone who was working on a farm about 100km downwind from the site when the fallout plume started going up (and coming down). I've not seen any credible predictions of everything bigger than a rat keeling over. I have seen doom-mongering that the sky was going to fall and such like shit, but you get that every second new moon anyway, and it's as true next time as it is now.
      Learn to discriminate between your sources.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. It's because by ascari · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...they are nuclear plants? [ducks]

    1. Re:It's because by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Duh, they've been fertilized with Miracle-Glo!

    2. Re:It's because by EEPROMS · · Score: 1, Funny

      ...they are nuclear plants? [ducks]

      or..

      in Soviet Russia nuclear plant grows

    3. Re:It's because by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

      And heavy watering.

      --
      John
    4. Re:It's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it.

    5. Re:It's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...they are nuclear plants? [ducks]

      it's "nucular"!

  4. Of course life adapts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case of nuclear Holocaust, life on Earth will adapt. Plants will grow, new animal species will arise. And Humans will adapt by dying out.

    1. Re:Of course life adapts. by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "And Humans will adapt by dying out."

      The many survivors of atomic testing and nuclear attack suggest otherwise.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Of course life adapts. by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "What does not kill me, makes me stronger."

      "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection"

      Nietzsche, Darwin, what's the difference.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    3. Re:Of course life adapts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ok let's cut your legs, it will make you stronger

    4. Re:Of course life adapts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Chicks like guys in wheelchairs - maybe he'll get layed!

    5. Re:Of course life adapts. by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      There are lots of things which, while non-fatal, weaken one.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    6. Re:Of course life adapts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is possible to reach the same conclusion with both methods.

    7. Re:Of course life adapts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nietzsche talks about an individual. Darwin talks about a population.

      Duh.

    8. Re:Of course life adapts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that Darwin is talking about future generations, whereas Nietzsche means the current organism i.e. the person thinking "What does not....".

    9. Re:Of course life adapts. by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      The flesh may be weak, but the spirit is indomitable.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    10. Re:Of course life adapts. by benwiggy · · Score: 1

      The flesh may be weak, but the spirit is indomitable.

      Care to spend 5 years in Gitmo? I'll show you how domitable your spirit is.

    11. Re:Of course life adapts. by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      "What does not kill me, makes me stronger.
      What does kill me, I'll deal with when I respawn."

      My favourite signature back when I was playing team-based war games.

    12. Re:Of course life adapts. by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      The many survivors of atomic testing and nuclear attack suggest otherwise.

      If you were to ask them, I think they're more likely to suggest that nuclear attack is a good way to kill 60,000-166,000 people in a single throw, and that they'd prefer it didn't happen at all.

    13. Re:Of course life adapts. by SoVeryTired · · Score: 1

      "What does not kill me, makes me stronger." .

      That's what my dad used to say.

      Until the accident.

      --
      Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
    14. Re:Of course life adapts. by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      Not every human would be contaminated to a problematic degree. The human race would certainly survive.

    15. Re:Of course life adapts. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "What does not kill me, makes me stronger."

      I, for one, welcome our new radiation-enhanced gene-mutated overlords.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re:Of course life adapts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nietzsche, Darwin, what's the difference.

      The difference is that Nietzsche was being philosophical, since his claim is not a scientific theory and is easily disproved.

      Stephen Hawkings is an excellent example of this; since the onset of his ALS he has not died AND has gotten weaker, to the point where most Slashdot members could even take him in an arm wrestling contest.

    17. Re:Of course life adapts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chicks ... layed!

      Spent too much time in the henhouse?

    18. Re:Of course life adapts. by Candyban · · Score: 1

      At least you will always find a parking spot.
      Another plus is that nobody can step on your toes so it definitely makes you stronger mentally.
      On a more serious note: There are currently prostheses which allow you to run faster without legs.

    19. Re:Of course life adapts. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Their presence suggests otherwise. What they think about it doesn't matter in an evolutionary sense. A considerable number survived to reproduce.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    20. Re:Of course life adapts. by Keith+Henson · · Score: 1

      It might even be good for you in moderation.

      Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer?

      http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf

      . . . it appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure.

      --
      End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
  5. Aquired Characteristics in Animal Kingdom first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I distinctly remembered that people born white in desert(ed) climates (think Michigan) would actually adapt in similar ways: their skin turned black, they developed ignorance, their hair got short and kinky, light barrels of trash on fire to keep warm, and line-up at every line of people leading into a government building to assume free handouts.

  6. Hmmm that'll do... by pookemon · · Score: 5, Funny

    From TFA - "Scientists had to wear masks, goggles and gloves to work in the area"

    Meanwhile the remainder of their body was burnt to a crisp by the radioactivity. Masks, goggles and gloves? This experiment was presumably organised by someone from the Simpsons... (My eyes - the goggles do nothing!)

    --
    dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    1. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by blai · · Score: 1

      It doesn't mean you wear nothing else.

      --
      In soviet Russia, God creates you!
    2. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably the point is not so much to shield radiation, but to reduce / prevent direct contact, or (worse) ingestion of radioactive material. Depending on conditions & duration of the job, masks, goggles & gloves may just be adequate.

    3. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depends on the type and strength of radiation present. If it's mostly alpha particles then it will be blocked by your skin, but they can still penetrate mucous membranes (like in the nose and around the eyes) or be inhaled and absorbed through the lungs.

      There is also the inverse square law, standing several feet away from a lightly radioactive source is going to be less hazardous than handling it with your bare hands. Hence the gloves.

    4. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scientists wore shoes, socks, pants, underwear, shirts, TLDR

    5. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by pookemon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah - you should probably RTFA - that quote was from a caption of a picture showing the scientists wearing normal clothes, masks, goggles and gloves. None of which would do anything against radioactivity.

      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    6. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by jamesh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Radiation isn't the only problem. Uranium is toxic even without its radioactivity. I suspect that there are a bunch of other byproducts of a reactor explosion that are just as bad.

    7. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, the typical reaction to to the word "radioactivity."

      Most areas around Chernobyl are pretty harmlessly radioactive unless you a) spend a long time there or b) get some of the radioactive stuff on or in you and it sticks with you for an extended period of time.

      Cyanide is pretty deadly stuff too, but only if you ingest it.

    8. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, they would do something.

      Primarily they would prevent the accidental ingestion of alpha particle emitters. Shit like polonium like the Russians used on that reporter a few years ago. They're normally harmless, your dead skin cells will stop the alpha particles, but [deity] help you if you ingest them.

      The background radiation levels are easily measurable and it's pretty easy to calculate how long someone should reasonable stay in an area unprotected. I would wager that these scientists actually know something about science, and were mainly concerned with ingesting alpha emitters, not absorbing gamma rays.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    9. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Probably the point is not so much to shield radiation, but to reduce / prevent direct contact, or (worse) ingestion of radioactive material. Depending on conditions & duration of the job, masks, goggles & gloves may just be adequate.

      Right. The key is to limit exposure to the precise amount where you don't die, but do gain superpowers.

      These scientists know what they're doing.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by SimonInOz · · Score: 1

      >> harmlessly radioactive unless you a) spend a long time there or b) get some of the radioactive stuff on or in you and it sticks with you for an extended period of time.

      You mean like, oh, I don't know, a plant, maybe?

      --
      "Cats like plain crisps"
    11. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes. Although plants have quite a few advantages over us where it comes to tolerating radiation.

    12. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I'll remember that. It seems that 3M filter-lite paint masks, medical gloves, and welders glasses are okie!

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by monkyyy · · Score: 0

      like what? for the non-science majors

      --
      warning pointless sig
    14. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do you think would happen to you if you stayed outside in direct sunlight day after day, for your entire lifetime? Plants are heartier than humans, probably because they tend to be far simpler. I'm sure a bio guy could tell you more accurate and precise reasons, but you seem to not want that...

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    15. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Shit like polonium like the Russians used on that reporter a few years ago. "

      Russians? Every smoker does it.

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

      Radioactive carcinogens

      In addition to chemical, nonradioactive carcinogens, tobacco and tobacco smoke contain small amounts of lead-210 (210Pb) and polonium-210 (210Po) both of which are radioactive carcinogens. The presence of polonium-210 in mainstream cigarette smoke has been experimentally measured at levels of 0.0263–0.036 pCi (0.97–1.33 mBq),[43] which is equivalent to about 0.1 pCi per milligram of smoke (4 mBq/mg); or about 0.81 pCi of lead 210 per gram of dry condensed smoke (30 Bq/kg).

    16. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Uranium actually acts like estrogen in small doses.

    17. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by tg123 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, the typical reaction to to the word "radioactivity."

      For good reason too - we can not hear ,smell or taste radiation and its effects will last a life time.

      any exposure to radiation causes harm it is just a case of how well are bodies able to tolerate it.

      http://science.jrank.org/pages/5635/Radiation-Radiation-health.html

      Most areas around Chernobyl are pretty harmlessly radioactive unless you a) spend a long time there or b) get some of the radioactive stuff on or in you and it sticks with you for an extended period of time...................

      I will have to take your word for it. Never having been to the areas that surround the Chernobyl power plant, I would however think there must be a reason why the cities of Chernobyl and Prypiat were abandoned.

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

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prypiat,_Ukraine

    18. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by pehrs · · Score: 1

      On the acute side:
      * Plants have a nice, thick, outer layer (compared to your skin) which blocks a lot of potentialy dangerous radition.
      * Every single cell in a plant has a cellulose based cell wall which can soak up a lot of damage compared to your cells.
      * Plants don't move nearly as much stuff around inside them, ensuring dangerous particles mostly stay on the outside.

      On the chronic side:
      * Plants don't have nearly as many specialized, quickly dividing, cells that a stray alpha particle can turn into cancer.
      * Plants have a much slower metabolism rate, giving them a better chanse to survive should cancer develop.

      In general, plants are very hardy compared to animals, but they are not invulnerable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest

    19. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Vintermann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are positively glowing!

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    20. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Though it probably is the alpha emmitters.
      Heavy metals are bad to eat, breath or rub on your skin radioactive or not.
      You'd want to wear some protective gear when handling any industrial waste.
      Personally I'd want more gear than they have if I was working around a coal fly ash pile or a lead mine.

      Plain old uranium is nothing special on that count.
      As a radiation source it isn't even too bad as long as it isn't around too much other uranium.

    21. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      That would be the reason he gave as a)

      And of course the fact that you shouldn't eat or drink anything there.

      --
      bickerdyke
    22. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      "any exposure to radiation causes harm it is just a case of how well are bodies able to tolerate it."

      Which is true for everything.
      Any falls cause harm, it is just a case of how well are bodies able to tolerate it.
      Any UV from sunlight causes harm,it is just a case of how well are bodies able to tolerate it.
      Any time causes harm,it is just a case of how well are bodies able to tolerate it.

      You are being exposed to radiation every second of every day.
      If you live in an area with a lot of granite then you're being exposed to far more than I am in an area without much granite.

      And the human body is pretty good at surviving moderate levels of radiation.
      Your cells don't just sit there when they're damaged by radiation, they have a whole range of capabilities for dealing with damage from radiation.

      Don't eat alpha emmitters, don't eat heavy metals radioactive or not ,try to avoid long term exposure to more than a few times normal background radiation, try to avoid short term exposure to 20 or 30 times normal background radiation and your chances of getting cancer won't change by more than a few fractions of a percent.

    23. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by whm · · Score: 1

      "The area" is the Chernobyl 30km exclusion zone. It's not like you're imagining. The risk here is with consuming or inhaling particles of irradiated dirt or material.

    24. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by tokul · · Score: 1

      Uranium is toxic

      strontium-90 and caesium-137 are more likely. Radioactive fallout usually comes not with Uranium. All transuranic elements have short half-lives and quickly degrade to something else.

    25. Re: Re: Hmmm that'll do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the typical reaction to to the word "dynamite."

      Most areas around mines are pretty harmlessly laid with dynamite unless you a) kick it b) set fire to it.

      Water is pretty deadly stuff too, but only if you ingest too much of it.

    26. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Transuranics, yes. The isotopes of uranium that you will find in a reactor have half lives measured in millennia. They are very stable to decay, which is not the same thing as fission.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    27. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The two big ones are the cell walls (which protect the nucleus, so even if something radioactive is in one cell, it won't do much damage to adjacent ones) and the slow replacement rate for cells. The second one is the advantage that cockroaches have. Mammals constantly replace our cells, making us much more susceptible to cancer from genome damage.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    28. Re: Re: Hmmm that'll do... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Everything is a poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    29. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Here let me give you the 5th grade level class on radiation.
      There are four types of radiation you need to worry about.
      Alpha
      Beta
      Gamma
      and
      Neutron.
      Neutron is the worst but is also pretty rare. It is usually caused by spontaneous fission or from Alpha partials hitting other elements like beryllium. That would be an usual situation in nature. What makes Neutron radiation so bad is it makes other things radioactive.

      Gamma is very high energy and pretty nasty stuff and you need a lot of shielding to stop it. Like feet of concert or lots of lead.
      Gamma is a high energy photon.
      Beta can be stopped by a sheet of Aluminum. It is a high energy electron.
      Alpha can be stopped by you dead skins cells or a sheet of paper.

      The thing is that out side of a nuclear reactor radiation levels high enough to really hurt your are very rare on Earth. What you do not want to do is get radioactive material into your body. I am guessing that the two big nasties at Caesium 137 and Strontium 90
      Both are bioactive. Caesium 137 doesn't stay in your body too long but is both a beta and Gamma source.
      Strontium 90 is really bad. It goes to your bones and hangs out for a very long time.

      So yes this actually does make a lot of sense. You do not want those to get into your body but at the actual radiation levels are not that dangerous for a short visit.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    30. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most areas around Chernobyl are pretty harmlessly radioactive unless you a) spend a long time there or b) get some of the radioactive stuff on or in you and it sticks with you for an extended period of time.

      You have a strange definition of harmless.

      To me "it's OK if you were a protecive suit, mask and gloves, speed through without stopping and get hosed off at the other end" sounds more like a pretty good definition of a hazardous environment, but maybe I'm just a wuss.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    31. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What do you think would happen to you if you stayed outside in direct sunlight day after day, for your entire lifetime?

      That's a bit unfair as a thought experiment on slashdot, ninety per cent of whoe readers probably believe they would get cancer and die if exposed to more than a few seconds of sunlight EVAR.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    32. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would wager that these scientists actually know something about science

      Everybody knows that scientists don't know anything about science. To know the truth all you need is your gut. These people claiming to know "facts" are just ivory tower elitists that want to make you believe in wacky things like evolution and fancy words like heliocentrism. But they can't fool me. When I look up I see everything moving while we stay still. What's more, I see everything else around me moving while I just stay in place. When my gut sees that it tells me the only truth I need to know; I am the center of the universe.

      My gut also tells me that this is not an obvious rip-off of somebody else's shtick. But that could just be what I ate for lunch.

    33. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by operagost · · Score: 1

      feet of concert

      Would dancing shoes qualify? (spell checker FAIL I presume)

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    34. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Tragedy4u · · Score: 1

      Depending on the level and type of radiation in the area, masks, goggles and gloves may actually be enough. Alpha particles are pretty much only dangerous if ingested or breathed in. Beta waves (very common in most nuclear plants) can almost be stopped by a piece of paper, and typically only your eyes and hands are at risk...hence the goggles and gloves. Gamma radiation, which is common in most nuclear reactor vaults, well there's not much you can do about that other than limiting your exposure. The nuclear symbol the three leafed Trefoil stands for three things: Time, Distance, Shielding.

    35. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Tragedy4u · · Score: 1

      They would protect you against Beta particle emitters, which are common in nuclear plants. Alpha yes, don't eat it or breath it in and you're usually fine. It's the Gamma you really have to be concerned about, for that you limit your exposure.

    36. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .....so Fry and Bender are hanging out one day...

      *Bender points X-Ray flash-light at Fry, aiming at his crotch*

      Fry: "Ow, that hurt!"

      *Bender points X-Ray flash-light at his crotch again*

      Fry: "Hey, it didn't hurt that time!"

    37. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      still want to call it harmless?

      and this is one of the lowest values measured.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    38. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Plants are heartier than humans, probably because they tend to be far simpler.

      Amazing powers of deduction. Any chance you're one of the Hearty Boys? If so are you the cheerful one, or the wholesome and substantial one?

    39. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The dangerous decay has long since passed, it falls of really quick and requires real close proximity to enough material to get something to happen.

      On the other hand, it doesn't take much getting into your body, collecting in your pituitary gland (might be the wrong gland but its one of them) and wreaking havoc.

      They'd have to get in the containment building OR ingest a lot to be dangerous.

      For reference, people worked at the planet every day until 2000, 24 years after the event happened and these people were within a few hundred meters of the containment building, not wondering around the woods several miles away.

      Its not NEARLY as bad as its made out to be. Radiation is something people freak the fuck out about but its not nearly as dangerous as half the crap you have under your sink.

      This also isn't new news either, studies have show how animal and plant life were adapting in 96.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    40. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In addition to what the others posted, plants tend to polyploidy. Ploidy is the number of copies of chromosomes you have. Humans are diploids, because we have two copies of all our chromosomes, (unless you're male, in which case you have a Y instead of a second X, predisposing you to all kinds of genetic diseases). A lot of plants are tetraploids - four sets. There are some ferns that are extreme cases and have hundreds of copies.

      So if you're living permanently in an area with low level radiation, you're probably going to do better if you've got extra redundancy.

      Note that the relationship between ploidy and radiation sensitivity seems to be more complex than I've suggested here, but most studies seem to show increased ploidy is associated with more radiation resistance.

    41. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Your link explicitly contradicts your statement:

      You: "any exposure to radiation causes harm it is just a case of how well are bodies able to tolerate it."

      Your link: "as far as anyone has been able to determine, small amounts of any kind of radiation are harmless"

      If you investigate the actual scientific literature, you'll find that there is reasonable evidence that a certain level of radiation is good for organisms. The specific level where the benefits are outweighed by the negative effects differs.

      Of course, you yourself are radioactive and continually emitting (and absorbing) radiation, along with absolutely everything you've ever seen, touched, smelled or tasted. And there are a lot of other things that you can't hear, smell, taste or see that can kill you, faster than all but the most extreme levels of radiation, but don't inspire comments about flesh instantly burning away.

      The cities around Chernobyl have been evacuated precisely because long term exposure to the level of radioactivity in that are are likely to be harmful. Living in that area would fall under both the (a) and (b) exceptions to my statement.

    42. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Harmless: without the power or desire to do harm

      If you wear a mask a gloves and don't spend an extended amount of time there, you will suffer no ill effects. That is, it is no harm has been done. It is harmless. Note my statement (read the WHOLE thing):

      "Most areas around Chernobyl are pretty harmlessly radioactive unless you a) spend a long time there or b) get some of the radioactive stuff on or in you and it sticks with you for an extended period of time."

      Sorry if that seems snarky, but you're not the first person who seems to have suffered from a strange inability to read the whole sentence.

    43. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if there are any units on that (I don't read Russian), so it's pretty meaningless.

      But I see somebody's hand. Did that person suffer harm? If not, the situation (him being there) was pretty harmless hey?

    44. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most gamma radiation passes through your body without ever interacting.

      These scientists were worried about radioactive contamination, not acute radiation exposure. The defense against contamination is to keep the emitters from getting inside your body.

    45. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      AFAIR this is 0.95 mSv/h, which is already not very healthy and about as much radiation as humans normally get in a year. And this is the lowest value that was measured. On the way to Pripyat' that guy catched 15 mSv/h.

      He doesn't care much, though because he hasn't got long to live anyway. This picture above is pretty much my fault, I was interested in a trip through the zone, he showed me why I rather shouldn't.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    46. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by JohnnySoftware · · Score: 1

      The plant used an outdoor cesium pile.
      Literally, a pile.
      http://www.ratical.com/radiation/Chernobyl/Chernobyl@10p2.html

      If you want polonium, smoke some cigarettes.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium

      --
      Let the PC get its zen on, for chrissake!
    47. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      So if you hung out there for six hours you'd get about the same amount of exposure as an airline pilot who flies 1000 hours a year (20 hours in the air per week).

      As I said, pretty much harmless, provided you don't stick around for too long. The scientists wearing masks and gloves to collect samples are adequately protected.

    48. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      If I stroke your cheek every day for an hour for a year you'll receive the same amount of energy as if I severely beat you up once. Therefore beating you up is harmless for you. Right?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    49. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Strangely, radiation exposure isn't quite like being beaten or stroked.

      Okay, let's try it another way. 12 hours of exposure to 1 mSv/hour gives you the same dose as a single cardiac CT angiogram (which takes a whole lot less than 12 hours). Happy?

      Do you really think all the researchers in the Chernobyl area are putting themselves in mortal danger?

  7. Nice one by MrEricSir · · Score: 2, Funny

    A rod of applause to you.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Nice one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's comments like this that make me think were missing the core of the article

    2. Re:Nice one by CraftyJack · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd say we're about Three Mile(s) off.

  8. And in a related story... by Trip6 · · Score: 1

    ...the cockroach population is also thriving.

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
    1. Re:And in a related story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roach state of the population address:

      "My fellow cockroaches, today we are thriving like never before! Once we were ordinary roaches. Now we are larger than the largest Madagascar hissing cockroaches that ever crawled on the surface of the Earth. And our scientists predict that some of our descendants will reach lengths of up to 50 feet! No more will humans stomp on us! Soon, we will stomp on them!

      I must report, however, that we have a slight 'next door neighbor' problem. The ants in this area have also absorbed radiation, and they are already 20 feet long and growing. Gentlemen, while stomping humans into extinction will be a fun pastime, the real issue is how to cope with THEM."

    2. Re:And in a related story... by sirrunsalot · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, radiation tolerance of cockroaches is somewhat of an urban legend, but "a thriving fruit fly population" doesn't have much of a ring to it.

  9. Re:Aquired Characteristics in Animal Kingdom first by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 0, Troll

    Amazing how a Black President brought so many racists screaming out their shacks and into every forum on the web. I just can't figure out how so many of them found internet connections.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  10. Great... by santax · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now eat that plant... See what happens. Maybe you get 'immune' maybe you don't :P

    1. Re:Great... by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      So instead of Spiderman we get... Plantman?

    2. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Swamp Thing all over again.....

    3. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A vegetable.

    4. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like Green Lantern, your know, green and glowing.... :P

    5. Re:Great... by speroni · · Score: 1

      Plantman vs. Zombies?

      --
      Eschew Obfuscation
  11. Re:Aquired Characteristics in Animal Kingdom first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wow, I can't tell if you are new here or just retarded. There have been a ton of racists on slashdot long before the black president.

  12. And this is stunning because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did all the plants die off after Chernobyl? Maybe that happened but I don't remember that story.

    Who is to say that plants like these are affected as much by radiation? They are simpler organisms, have much shorter lifespans, and obviously quite different from mammals.

    Would I be surprised if moss or algae were unaffected by higher doses of radiation? no.

    Also seems like this is an old story (May 2009)

    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/05/15-02.html

    1. Re:And this is stunning because.... by sirrunsalot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did all the plants die off after Chernobyl?

      In some areas, yes. See Red Forest. But that doesn't stop plants and animals from making their way back in, however slowly. Sounds like an extreme environment ripe for adaptation/evolution.

    2. Re:And this is stunning because.... by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1

      Maybe stunning is the wrong word, but interesting.

      Back in the day, the USA did a bunch of experiments on the effects of radiation on plants, particularly plants of interest to agriculture. The results were dismaying, at least to anyone planning to grow crops after a nuclear war or a major containment accident. This study suggests that maybe the effects are not as terrible as first believed.

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    3. Re:And this is stunning because.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The plants have almost certainly absorbed radioactive material and incorporated it into their cells. Rather than causing cancer in a plant, this is most likely to just kill a few surrounding cells. The plant itself may be healthy, but no mammal that ate it would be (and since the local mammals will probably learn this quite quickly, the plants will probably do a bit better than normal). This isn't great for agriculture though.

      That said, one of the proposals for handling fallout that was floated in the '60s was to plant a lot of fast-growing grasses in the area. They would collect a lot of the radioactive minerals, die, and then you could harvest them and store or process them elsewhere.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:And this is stunning because.... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Over what time frame?

      If plants can recolonize a seriously contaminated area after, say, 10-15 years - it doesn't really help humans who need crops continuously. Going a number of years without food is likely to kill a lot of people, even if after a decade or so it's actaully possible to grow crops again.

    5. Re:And this is stunning because.... by pedantic+bore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As the earlier commenter pointed out, the plants might be poisonous as crops if they aggregate the radioactive materials, so maybe the health of the plants is nothing to be overjoyed about. However, one of the points is that the forests around Chernobyl never died off. There wasn't a period when the area around the reactor completely died. The plants didn't "adapt" to the radiation; they were already adapted to tolerate quite a bit of it.

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
  13. Cool, but old news. by dcposch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, evolution is alive and well. A species of bacteria evolved in the early 70s that can digest nylon.

    I think this news is a nice reality check on that annoying but vocal cadre of environmentalists that are always predicting some kind of terrible apocalypse within the next couple of decades. Global cooling, for example. Not to mention a nifty "myth busted" moment for that old Hollywood trope of a post-nuclear wasteland.

    I'm definitely not saying we shouldn't take care of our environment, by the way, and I'm certainly not an AGW denialist. The specific way things are now matters a lot to us fickle and fragile humans. If the sea level rises by another yard, the crabs will just move. The Venetians are the ones that would be screwed.

    I'm just saying that nature is more resilient than people usually imagine.

    1. Re:Cool, but old news. by lewiley · · Score: 0

      An interesting thing is that plants have adapted, but the people of Chernobyl have been dying mostly of AIDS, not from the radiation.

    2. Re:Cool, but old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nature is robust and resilient. Individual human beings are not. Evolution works by killing off species that can't take that radiation, new species keep getting born and dying, until eventually some emerge that survive. Can humans afford that kind of evolution? No.

    3. Re:Cool, but old news. by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      you might want to ask people from ukraine and belarus how fascinating it is to experience natural, that is, artificial selection in first person.

      And TFS speaks about surrounding soil: the explosion affected quite a large area. Strangely enough no alarm was raised until at least the day after the cloud came to our area (NE italy). Living few kilometers from the iron curtain in a (then) densely militarized zone one would have assumed that NBC monitoring was done in order to prevent attacks from the (then) bad commies.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    4. Re:Cool, but old news. by Wannabe+Code+Monkey · · Score: 1

      I think this news is a nice reality check on that annoying but vocal cadre of environmentalists that are always predicting some kind of terrible apocalypse within the next couple of decades. Global cooling, for example.

      Come on, did you even read the article you linked?

      [Global cooling] gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles

      Not to mention a nifty "myth busted" moment for that old Hollywood trope of a post-nuclear wasteland.

      Again... must I say come on? Are you really comparing a relatively isolated nuclear accident at a single power plant to the use of hundreds of nuclear weapons across the globe?

      --
      We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
    5. Re:Cool, but old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honest question...

      What does the A in AGW stand for?
      (A??? Global Warming)

    6. Re:Cool, but old news. by Quantumplation · · Score: 1

      The Venetians are the ones that would be screwed, unless they saw it coming... So the question is, in regards to global warming, are the Venetians blind?

    7. Re:Cool, but old news. by MrNemesis · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to mention a nifty "myth busted" moment for that old Hollywood trope of a post-nuclear wasteland.

      The explosion at Chernobyl wasn't a nuclear one, it was steam (due to a massive reactor power spike thanks to the skillful removal of pretty much all possible safety procedures in an already sub-optimal reactor design) that blew open the core and scattered radioactive material over the landscape and into the atmosphere thanks to the lack of a containment vessel. The Hollywood trope of the post-nuclear landscape typically involves the detonation of several hundred megatons of nuclear bombs and, as near as we can tell, is pretty accurate; Chernobyl isn't really comparable to a nuke in either the degree of the explosion or in the amount of radioactive fallout. /nitpick

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    8. Re:Cool, but old news. by sirrunsalot · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

    9. Re:Cool, but old news. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Anthropogenic.
      That is, man-made.
      Or man-and-woman-made, to be politically correct. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    10. Re:Cool, but old news. by GNious · · Score: 1

      Chernobyl isn't really comparable to a nuke in either the degree of the explosion or in the amount of radioactive fallout.

      Is actually how I remember the story being told on the news, along with "graphics" (cardboards) showing how the cloud of radioactive death would sweep up to kill us all, and lay the land bare....

    11. Re:Cool, but old news. by Vintermann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My understanding was that the point of this article was that this was not evolution, or at most an evolutionary switch-on of a feature that evolved long ago.

      When plants reach for the light, it's not because they are evolving into a new organism on the spot. Rather, they have long ago evolved to dynamically adapt to lighting conditions. What TFA is proposing is that plants dynamically adapt to ionizing radiation as well, and they have had that capability for some time, it's just that we haven't been in a position to observe it.

      As to the rest of your comment: If you think "environmentalists are always predicting some kind of terrible apocalypse withing the next couple of decades" and cite "global cooling" as an example - maybe you're not an AGW denialist, but you have apparently picked up some of their rhetoric style.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    12. Re:Cool, but old news. by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      You "remember" stuff to suit you. I remember it too, although I was very young back then. My parents didn't panic, as I dare say they would if they thought "the cloud of radioactive death would sweep up to kill us all, and lay the land bare".

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    13. Re:Cool, but old news. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      "you might want to ask people from ukraine and belarus how fascinating it is to experience natural, that is, artificial selection in first person."

      Are they dying of cancer more?

      Deaths, Neoplasms, per 100000 (most recent data available used)

      Belarus 164.11
      Ukraine 159.08
      Denmark 212.62
      Germany 170.19
      Ireland 181.82
      Italy 170.66
      Luxembourg 172.65
      EU average 178.09

      Source:World Health Organisation
      http://data.euro.who.int/hfamdb/

    14. Re:Cool, but old news. by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      They had a comparable disaster to 9/11, according to government agencies, a quick googling says what I quote below.

      Publications

      The Chernobyl Forum released on 5 September 2005 a comprehensive scientific assessment report on the consequences of the Chernobyl accident titled: "Chernobyl's legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts".[2] A revised edition was released in March 2006 and is available here, together with the Forum's report "Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine".

      The report covers environmental radiation, human health and socio-economic aspects. About 100 recognized experts from many countries, including Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, have contributed. The report claims to be "the most comprehensive evaluation of the accident's consequences to date" and to represents "a consensus view of the eight organizations of the UN family according to their competences and of the three affected countries".[3]

      On the death toll of the accident, the report states that 28 emergency workers died from acute radiation syndrome and 15 patients died from thyroid cancer. It roughly estimates that cancers deaths caused by the Chernobyl accident may reach a total of about 4,000 among the 600,000 clean up workers or "liquidators" who received the greatest exposures.[4]

      Also, the report estimates an additional 5,000 deaths from the Chernobyl accident among the exposed population of around 6 million living in the contaminated areas of three countries: Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.[5] No estimates were given for other areas.

      The report quotes 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer resulting from the accident, mainly in children and adolescents at the time of the accident; however the survival rate is said to be almost 99%. Since most emergency workers and people living in contaminated areas received relatively low radiation doses, comparable to natural background levels, no decrease in fertility or increase in congenital malformations have been observed.[2]

      The report indicates that many people were traumatised by the accident and the rapid relocation that followed; they remain anxious about their health, perceiving themselves as helpless victims rather than survivors, mainly because of the lack of credible information about the effects of the accident. The Chernobyl Forum recommends that relocated people be helped to normalise their lives and better access social services and employment.

      The report also concluded that a greater risk than the long-term effects of radiation exposure, is the risk to mental health caused by exaggerated fears about the effects of radiation:

              " ... The designation of the affected population as "victims" rather than "survivors" has led them to perceive themselves as helpless, weak and lacking control over their future. This, in turn, has led either to over cautious behavior and exaggerated health concerns, or to reckless conduct, such as consumption of mushrooms, berries and game from areas still designated as highly contaminated, overuse of alcohol and tobacco, and unprotected promiscuous sexual activity."[6]

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    15. Re:Cool, but old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not news.
      Cabbages love/absorb heavy metals
      Couple of flowers thrive on explosive residue.
      When it went off I was surprise there was not a bulk planting at natures nuclear cleaners.

      Same gos. Do not eat veggies from contaminated areas.

    16. Re:Cool, but old news. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      I'm still not seeing the public demonstration of natural/artifical selection (at least not significantly more than in the rest of the world).

      That sounds like a pretty fair report.

      An extra 1 in a million chance of dying from cancer for the general population sounds reasonably but I'm genuinely curious how they seperated that from all the regular cancer deaths since even over a large population noise and confounding factors like improvements in treatments for other killers like heart disease would change the rates of cancer deaths by that much and more.

    17. Re:Cool, but old news. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying that nature is more resilient than people usually imagine.

      The planet/nature as a whole may be, it's the small matter of humanity being obliterated that worries me.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    18. Re:Cool, but old news. by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Overall, we don't have to worry about nature too much. At least not in the "doom and gloom" way, perhaps in the "we just lost some valuable species way".

      The bigger concern for global warming is how it will impact humans. Not that we'll die off, just that it will cost a lot of money and resources to deal with the changes.

    19. Re:Cool, but old news. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The amount of fallout from an nuclear detonation depends quite heavily on the altitude it occurs. A ground-burst, a detonation where the fireball contacts the ground produces a dirty cloud by sucking up massive quantities of ground material and either neutron activating it or mixing it with radionuclides from the device; which generates a larger amount of radioactive fallout that is widely dispersed. A high altitude detonation doesn't suck up much ground material to neutron activate and have clean clouds and much less fallout. In any case a nuclear detonation produce much less radioactive fallout, but disperses it over a wide area, a nuclear power reactor has a lot of radioactive material, but in an accident it is not widely dispersed, a nuclear power plant being hit with a nuclear explosion is what keeps the experts awake at night; lots of radiation widely dispersed.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    20. Re:Cool, but old news. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      some kind of terrible apocalypse

      There very well could be some terrible apocalypse in the next few seconds that would wipe out all human life on Earth.

      Only idiots believe something is going to end all life on Earth.

      I'm just saying that nature is more resilient than people usually imagine.

      Yep, thats why life has survived all sorts of things that would undoubtably wipe use out of existence.

      Its just way easier to get hits if you try to scare people into reading your stories because OMG ITS THE ALST DAY ON DA EARTH, mang.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  14. BBC, wtf? by yankpop · · Score: 1

    I usually consider the BBC to be both a reliable source of info, and capable of quality reporting. I don't doubt the info in this case, but was the article written by monkeys? Or has the distinction between a paragraph and a sentence been deprecated?

    I was under the impression that the English are generally more literate than your average North American, seeing as they invented the language and all. But this article is awful.

    1. Re:BBC, wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The elite grammar manipulators have been decimated to the last man.

    2. Re:BBC, wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I usually consider the BBC to be both a reliable source of info, and capable of quality reporting. I don't doubt the info in this case, but was the article written by monkeys? Or has the distinction between a paragraph and a sentence been deprecated?

      The article was written by a piece of radioactive Tarragon. Considering the circumstances, I think it did quite well.

    3. Re:BBC, wtf? by Grim+Leaper · · Score: 1

      The ABC's NewsMail often includes stories like this, with lots of one-sentence paragraphs. I'm pretty sure this is what you get when you publish an unedited TV/radio script as if it were a news article.

    4. Re:BBC, wtf? by mejogid · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is how the BBC reports online - single sentence 'paragraphs' under headings that are closer to where you'd really divide paragraphs. I'm not sure why you're so outraged, news reports in general use short paragraphs and fragments. The NY Times, for example, frequently uses single sentence paragraphs.

      It makes articles easier to skim and ensures a consistent style between journalists, I'm not sure what your issue with it is.

    5. Re:BBC, wtf? by yankpop · · Score: 1

      It's not just the single sentence paragraphs, but also the near total lack of flow to the text. It reads like bullet points scraped off a powerpoint. I hadn't noticed how short the NYTimes paragraphs were, mostly because there's still some craft to the prose. The NYT still reads like it was meant to be read by literate humans, not parsed by a computer.

      To each his own, I guess.

    6. Re:BBC, wtf? by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

      if you know anything about english history you would know that many of the words as spoken today were not invented but forced upon the people by invaders of the gray clouded isle.

    7. Re:BBC, wtf? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean words like "minaret" and "tandoori"?

      The guys who gave us words like "beef" and "castle" arrived before anything recognizable as English existed.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:BBC, wtf? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that the English are generally more literate than your average North American

      If the literacy average in the UK is higher than in the US, sadly that says more about how bad you are, rather than how good we are.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  15. Re:Aquired Characteristics in Animal Kingdom first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wow, I can't tell if you are new here or just retarded. There have been a ton of racists on slashdot long before the black president.

    There's plenty of reasons for someone to not like Obama that have nothing to do with the color of his skin, but anyone who speaks out against him is automatically labeled as a racist just to shut them down.

  16. Day Of The Triffids! by IonOtter · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientist: Wow! They're thriving!

    Plant: (Yeah, that's right b*tch. You better believe it.)

    *weeks pass*

    Plant: (Eat me. Go on, you know you want to? Look at my lovely leaves, my beautiful drupes. I'm tasty. You KNOW I am. Eat me, human.)

    Scientist: Hmmmm...I wonder...

    Plant: (That's right, baby. Oh yesssss...verrry good.)

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Day Of The Triffids! by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      The original was better than the remake.

    2. Re:Day Of The Triffids! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, plants eat you!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  17. Mother nature by p51d007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Amazing how mother nature always seems to adapt to whatever man throws at it. And people still continue to say we can blow up the world. Earth took hits from asteroids, wiped out the critters, adapted, evolved and moved on. Same thing with any pollution.

    1. Re:Mother nature by Antisyzygy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Key point : Pollution affects Humans too. If you are interested in there being human beings around in the future you need to either, A) Get us off planet to other colonies or B) preserve the "colony" we have. There may be some other creature that evolves with our capacity for abstraction and application of abstraction (i.e. engineering) on Earth. However if you believe that intelligence like ours is rare in the Universe and also believe it is worthwhile, then we need to handle Earth a little better or start funding Nasa with our cigarette and booze money. Budget Comparison to Consumer Expenditures and SpaceReview.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    2. Re:Mother nature by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amazing how mother nature always seems to adapt to whatever man throws at it.
      And people still continue to say we can blow up the world. Earth took hits from
      asteroids, wiped out the critters, adapted, evolved and moved on. Same thing with
      any pollution.

      More like Nature adapting to Nature.
      Why are humans always separated out from natural things? Humans are animals just like ants and bees. Bees create honey, something that would not exist without bees creating it, and it's considered natural. Yet humans create things like "High Fructose Corn Syrup" and it's not considered natural.

    3. Re:Mother nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Off the top of my head, I can think of three reasons:
      • The scale of change we can (and do) bring to the planet.
      • Humans tend to stratify themselves relative to other animals, and animals relative to other forms of life.
      • The large variety of inventions we're responsible for, and that many of them are so complex and contrived compared to the materials used as input in their creation.

      Bees makes honey. We make many, many types of sweeteners -- some merely by collecting and lightly processing (e.g., filtering, cooking), and some through the creation of chemical compounds by our hand (rather than, e.g., enzymes or processes within our bodies) that either become the sweeteners or are applied to other materials to modify them into sweeteners (or change an existing sweetener on a molecular or chemical level. Beavers make fairly significant dams, but they're not great at finding new materials -- even pretty basic stuff like digging up the ground, finding clay, and seeing whether that works isn't in their purview; I'm not holding my breath for them to figure out how to manufacture fiberglass or low-E windows.

      Obviously, it's a question of degree (and semantics). I definitely fall on the side of calling many of our inventions artificial and not of nature.

    4. Re:Mother nature by dido · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was never a question of nature or the earth managing in spite of what we do. Nothing we can do, except possibly detonating every nuclear weapon in the world's arsenal (and maybe not even then) will be sufficient to completely wipe out all life on the planet. The real question is whether or not whatever we do or fail to do will make the planet uninhabitable for us humans. Nature may be resilient, but the human species, having existed for only 100,000 or so years in its present form, a mere blink of an eye in geological terms, isn't even close.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    5. Re:Mother nature by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      And people still continue to say we can blow up the world.

      No, they don't. At least not if you mean "blow up the planet". But if you're content with killing every human on it, and scorching every populated area, there's all those nuclear weapons. Although most of us prefer not to think or talk of them, they're still there.

      Same thing with any pollution.

      Oh sure, life will go on, in some form or another. But I'm kind of sentimental about stuff like, I don't know, mammals, which are certainly not capable of dealing with anything we can throw on them/us.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    6. Re:Mother nature by master_p · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is not life in general after we blow up the world. The problem is human life after we blow up the world. Life in general will go on on this planet for ever, until the planet is consumed by the Sun. The problem is us.

    7. Re:Mother nature by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      Yet humans create things like "High Fructose Corn Syrup" and it's not considered natural.

      And humans create things like "plastics" and they're not considered "natural" either.

      Of course, the toxins/venom from a cobra *are* perfectly natural.

      Please do not mistake "natural" with "good" (for any know or even assumed values of "good").

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    8. Re:Mother nature by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Bees create honey, something that would not exist without bees creating it, and it's considered natural. Yet humans create things like "High Fructose Corn Syrup" and it's not considered natural.

      I think the key difference is that eating honey doesn't make your toilet bowl look like an explosion in a chocolate factory after you've visited.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  18. Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Troll Alert : It boggles my mind why people still don't accept evolution as being a close approximation of the truth. I say "close approximation" because even physics is an abstract collection of ideas meant to help our human minds approximate physical laws of our Universe. As a species have had numerous examples of evidence be observed or deduced which support evolution. There is observed evidence, as in this case of plants near Chernobyl as well as others like the peppered moth, and qualitative evidence paired with analysis such as in the case of the varied forms of archaeology. These plants represent a micro-evolutionary step, as some people refer to it. Macroevolution(tau) = Microevolution(100000*t) . Differentiation within a species given enough time diverges the species into parts. Simply put, give it enough time and micro-evolution becomes macro-evolution. If you have some math background you will also deduce my other point; no matter what you call it its evolution.

    --
    That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    1. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      By that logic, Creationism = Big Bang Theory. Creationism typically means the belief that God created species as they are and they persisted to today with minor changes. That being said, I applaud your separation of religion from Evolution.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    2. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      For starters, Creationism is usually quoted with the Earth's actual age as around 6000 years, give or take a begat or two.

      This isn't the same as Quantum Theory and the Special Theory of Relativity, where we can use one in some circumstances, the other in some circumstances, and just pretend they don't agree with other yet work. A closer analog would be to use Quantum Theory for some circumstances, and a Ouija board for others. (Not to offend, but the scientific evidence for both Ouija and religion is about the same, zero.) What ever someone believes is fine, but they are polar opposite concepts that are not reconcilable.

      Religion is about accepting that a group of "facts" (bible) is right with no physical proof, and the leadership objects when someone doubts or questions the accuracy of the "facts".

      Science tries to prove that a "fact" (theory) is wrong and the leadership REQUIRES doubt and questions be testable before accepting as "fact".

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is such a thing as "long day creationism". God may have created the universe over billions of years. The same Hebrew word "day" in Genesis is used in other parts of scripture to mean "ages" or "indefinite amount of time". There is no where in the Bible that says the world is only 6000 years old. That number is simply assumptions some random priest made hundreds of years ago, there's no reason why he must be correct, and I believe he is wrong. I have an article with more detail here.

    4. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by jamesh · · Score: 1

      I don't think he's separating them, just saying that they don't have to conflict with each other. The 'earth was created 6000 years ago' isn't the only creationist belief[1] out there, it's just that those nutjobs are the loudest and get upset every time a fossil is discovered. A more reasonable belief would be that God set the initial parameters of the universe to make things happen the way they do, with evolution of the species being the eventual result. I don't believe it myself but it sounds a lot more reasonable than taking Genesis as the literal word of God. It's not like Genesis could have explained the Big Bang Theory and Evolution in a way that would have made sense 2000 years ago anyway.

      [1] i say belief, not theory, because it's not testable in any scientific sense - any evidence to the contrary is just handwaved away with 'but that's only because God made it look that way'

    5. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Religion is about accepting that a group of "facts" (bible) is right with no physical proof, and the leadership objects when someone doubts or questions the accuracy of the "facts".

      Beware of confusing the word "religion" with a specific religion that you don't like.

    6. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      To add to that point, the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day. It's kinda hard to have solar days without a sun.

    7. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Mogster · · Score: 1

      By that logic, Creationism = Big Bang Theory.

      I would suggest splitting Creationism into two parts
      1) Initial creation
      2) Flora, Fauna, etc created as they are today

      The first part can fit nicely into the theory of Evolution - belief dependent of course

      One of the early pioneers of the Big Bang theory was also a Catholic Priest. Georges_Lemaitre

      And before someone else brings it up there is also 'Intelligent Design'. However I can't speak for that as I'm not overly familiar with the tenants of its proponents and am not in the mood for a flamewar :-)

      --
      ACK NAK RST
    8. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      In fact the Genesis said "the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being".

      Since "life" in the bible does not refer simply to a heart beating, see "the book of life", I think the passage means, for believers, that man have an earthly origin plus something (divine/spiritual) instilled by God.

      Does not contradict Darwin's theories. It contradicts those who use Darwin as propaganda to theorize a mechanic godless world.
      Problem is, you don't need darwin to be atheist because God doesn't currently show up and if something godlike did there is no way for a trascendent god to prove itself in an immanent world. You cannot distinguish the root admin from a guy stealing the root password by looking at the logs.

      I think the debate between creationism and darwinism is a waste of energy.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    9. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      > By that logic, Creationism = Big Bang Theory

      Only if we adopt a narrow perspective.

      Creating the universe = creating all that is, time included, physical constants included. An eternal universe can be object of a creator. The big bang is just a theory on how big celestial masses move around. A complex fascinating maybe wrong theory, I don't want to downplay the work of scientists, but that doesn't give anybody a free pass in making wrong logical assumptions.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    10. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic, Creationism = Big Bang Theory.

      Creationism is a popular comedy show on TV?

    11. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beware of confusing the word "religion" with a specific religion that you don't like.

      It's not that I dislike any one religion. I dislike the concept of religion itself.

      I've yet to encounter a religion that didn't require certain "Facts" be taken on nothing but "Faith"
      In fact, the definition of religion is : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

      Faith is the unquestioning belief in something. If you doubt something a religion tells you then you are "Testing your Faith".
      Some religions support and encourage this testing, but most simple pretend to while training members/believers to base their doubts on false assumptions or other "Faith" based thoughts.

      My personal feelings, and those of many other logically-minded people, are that God might exist, but I have no proof that He does or does not. The suggestion that I should "take it on Faith" is abhorrent to me. If you can't offer evidence one way or the other, then there is no basis for debate.

      Even if you talk to some of the most level headed self proclaimed "Religious People", there is always a point in there logic which will be based on the assumption that there is a god. If you ask them to actively consider their own arguments while assuming that god doesn't exist, they can't.

    12. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      I agree with what you say. I have a bit of trouble when it comes to God's existence simply because its impossible to know whether they do or not, or what "God" is defined as. How can one know probability of existence of something without a concrete definition thereof? How can one know probability with an ill-posed problem in the first place? Evolution has absolutely no conflict with belief in God. However, typically the God believers have a problem with Evolution.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    13. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Why hang on to a belief in God if there is no way to judge the probability of there being one? Why hang on to the belief there is NO God is there is no way to judge the probability of there NOT being one? I.e. its indeterminant.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    14. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "A more reasonable belief would be that God set the initial parameters of the universe to make things happen the way they do"

      Why is it more reasonable? - It has exactly the same amount of evidence going for it as young Earth creationists have for their blind faith. The only reasonable answer to the question is "I don't know".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    15. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by monkyyy · · Score: 0

      "gospel" means good news and that most definitely isn't good news as i like knowing i can think

      --
      warning pointless sig
    16. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      But can an Eternal universe be abject of a Creator? How can we even answer such questions short of Metaphysical reasoning which is totally anti-logic?

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    17. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by plover · · Score: 1

      Why is it more reasonable? - It has exactly the same amount of evidence going for it as young Earth creationists have for their blind faith. The only reasonable answer to the question is "I don't know".

      No, because there's so much scientific evidence that says the young Earth creationists are wrong that they're as ignored as the perpetual motion idiots. It's much harder to say that the big bang was or wasn't divinely directed, because we don't have enough evidence yet to prove that it exploded one way or another, let alone if it followed divine guidance.

      The nice thing about a "directed big bang" theory is that the rational people can easily accept that everything else now happens according to natural rules discovered by the scientific method. They aren't wasting their lives pointlessly defending the talking fox from a ancient copy of "Aesop's Fables" as some kind of literal truth, but understand the stories in their book to be allegories.

      Rational religious people don't claim that their book was ever perfect (since it was written and transcribed by men) so they can ignore the obviously incorrect literal statements of the stories and focus instead on their meanings.

      But the fundamentalists are all afraid because their preachers told them that Jesus personally typeset every single comma between the English words in King James' Bible, and that it's absolute perfect truth. And if someone were to find a misplaced comma, their entire belief system would collapse because Jesus was perfect and couldn't make a mistake (never mind the part where their book says he's human.) So they need to make ever more outrageous claims (Intelligent Design, or Geocentrism, or whatever) to support the previous preachers' lies.

      Lies which were originally told because these preachers found control value in the stories about the woman must obey the man, man shall not lie with another man, you should throw rocks at black Arabs with your left hand, or whatever offensive, undefendable, racist piece of bigotry or homophobia they're trying to spew on Sunday mornings.

      Because the preachers know that nothing fills more seats with rich old racists than justifying their racism by calling it "the way things used to be" or "the good old days."

      If they were to ever stop fighting reality and accept that their foundational creation story is fiction meant to fill a gap in their understanding, then the different preachers would have to admit that many of the other stories were fiction, and they're afraid that would collapse their entire belief structure. "Oops, I guess we lied to you about 17% of this book. Trust me on the other 83%, OK? And send me another million dollars or Jesus will send terrorists to kill me."

      Ultimately, the religious people really don't want anything to do with hard evidence. They want their people to have to take it all on faith. That way, God is whatever they believe it is, and nobody can ever prove them wrong.

      --
      John
    18. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by kainosnous · · Score: 1

      Actually, the text reads "living soul". The word being translated soul is "nephesh", which according to my limited knowledge of Hebrew implies something a lot more complex than any single celled life, but would at least have to have been capable of breathing as we know of it. You say that the Bible does not contradict evolution. I once believed that too, but I was mistaken. I do not dispute Microevolution, but Macroevolution is clearly in opposition to the Bible.

      One point is that man, as well as all creatures, were made in one day. The Bible is very clear on the length of a day as being what we think of as a day now. Furthermore, there have not been millions of years, but instead about 10,000 years, and man was around from the beginning. The point is that you either believe the Bible or you do not.

      You are right that an atheist does not need Darwin, or even evolution or science for that matter. By definition, they must only believe that there is no God. You say that there is no way for God to prove Himself. That is true, it is impossible to prove anything to somebody who really wants to believe otherwise. If one were to ask for a proof that he understood, then it would seem too easy to be conclusive. God is not a sideshow performer, but instead the sovereign ruler of all who would be just even if He gave no proof and of His own whim demanded that everyone believe. Fortunately, God has given us the Bible, and offers to every man proof as much as he is willing to accept.

      So, it comes down to faith. Therefore, the debate is not creationism or darwinism. It is between faith in God and faith in self (your own ability to successfully reason). Once one rejects God and the Bible, then he is free to debate darwinism vs. any other theory of how things were formed.

      --
      There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
    19. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Why is it more reasonable? - It has exactly the same amount of evidence going for it as young Earth creationists have for their blind faith. The only reasonable answer to the question is "I don't know".

      It's more reasonable because it doesn't fly directly in the face of what we know about the universe.

      All the current scientific evidence points to the universe being somewhat more than 6000 years old, so to believe that it is 6000 years old and created in exactly the way that Genesis tells is unreasonable. 'more reasonable' still leaves a lot of room of course :)

    20. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, nobody ever specified a reference frame. Kind of hard to have one, really, before there's anything to define it relative to.

    21. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Reasonable" implies there is a reason to believe it, the only reason to believe anything is evidence. Neither old nor young earth creationists have any evidence for their claims therefore they are equally "reasonable". The fact that evidence exists to support a belief in an old Earth does not make either creationist claim more or less "reasonable", they are both based soley on blind faith.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    22. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      > How can we even answer such questions short of Metaphysical reasoning which is totally anti-logic?

      anti-logic... hm I'd say it's outside the scope of definition of our logic. But you are making a question which is fully inside the scope of this universe's logic, if define eternal as "having infinite time" instead of "being beyond time", a (wrong) assumption most people make.

      "But can an Eternal universe be object of a Creator?"

      Since WE can create eternity, the answer is yes. Just think up a cellular automata simulation's set of rules where the state of cell is a function of a variable t (itself an arbitrary floating point real, but it could be as little as mod 2, it's irrelevant) that we call "time". Congrats you made a (likely very boring) universe where you can calculate the state of a cell in arbitrary point of "time". That is an eternal universe.

      people may object: "BS if you start the simulation the hardware hosting it will eventually fail, it is not eternal at all". But I didn't specify a timeline. Nor steps.
      That universe is complete and eternal because for each t I can get the state of all cells i'm interested in.
      Note that such universe is really an abstraction in the brain of the creator, that universe IS the set of rules; personally I'd add that you better have somebody who knows those rules exist and what they are for, or it loses "meaning".

      The shorter answer would be: It can because logical constraints that create the "impossible" in this universe do not necessarily apply in "the meta".

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    23. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      erm, aside from mentioning some specific religious artefact of a bibliographic nature - I'd say the above comment applies equally to (perhaps not *absolutely all* but certainly) the vast overwhelming majority of modern religious.

      Religions (these days, at least) almost always boil down to "faith ie something you believe" and (also) almost always "some at least semi-formal heirarchy to keep the faithful faithful".

      The fact that said heirarchy is almost always seated in the lap of both luxury and power is purely coincidental, I'm sure.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    24. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      The only reasonable answer to the question is "I don't know".

      NO! The only reasonable answer to the question is "I don't know,but I wish I did. I'll try and find out myself, or at least help fund research into the problem."

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    25. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      Why hang on to the belief there is NO FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER if there is no way to judge the probability of there NOT being one?

      There, I fixed that for you.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    26. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      But can an Eternal universe be abject of a Creator?

      You're so full of assumptions these days. Currently most scientists are leaning towards declaring "this universe" (ie "the universe") to in actual fact NOT be "eternal" in anything more than a purely romantic and/or poetic sense.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    27. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      Long Day Creationism is just a way of retroactively the-princess-bride-ing a statement after you've been clearly proven conclusively wrong.

      Loudly Shouting "I don't think that word means what you thought I meant" does not lead to "nyah nyah I wuz rite an you wuz wrong".

      You declared certain "facts" absolute truth, and as it turns out you were definitively and absolutely wrong.

      Both you and The Pope need to grow up and get over it.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    28. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      One point is that man, as well as all creatures, were made in one day. The Bible is very clear on the length of a day as being what we think of as a day now. Furthermore, there have not been millions of years, but instead about 10,000 years, and man was around from the beginning. The point is that you either believe the Bible or you do not.

      IIRC a young Christ was surprising people in the synagogue by explaining them the Scriptures. Now if somebody 2000 years ago had problems interpreting scriptures in his native tongues I don't see how somebody can come up with the "definitive interpretation of the Bible" you either have to believe or not, now. You're trolling, maybe in "good faith".

      What about symbols? If the Bible is shown to contain one symbol, one metaphor, one figure of speech only, then you are not really sure if/where others may be located.

      The Bible being the Word doesn't imply anything on man ability to understand it. I'd rather have faith in the possibility that the Christ described in The Word was the son of God, and listen to what people who chose to live by that faith or sacrificed themselves for their faith have to say. I also don't recall anybody being *forced* to believe by Christ.

        I suspect that forcing to believe is by itself evil because it makes the choice impossible. This seems to me religion 101 regardless of the faith.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    29. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      The only religion I can think of that has that kind of hierarchy is Catholicism. Islam in many Middle East theocracies is a bit of a strange case, since their power is at least as much political as it is religious. Judaism has very little hierarchy, and the rabbis that work at the central offices and seminaries certainly aren't being paid millions of dollars. Most other branches of Christianity don't have large hierarchies that I'm aware of either. Those "megachurch" assholes don't count, since they aren't part of a hierarchy, even though they convince lots of stupid people to give them millions of dollars so that they can build a new stadiu- I mean, church- and an adjacent mansion for themselves.

    30. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you believe in some omnipotent God, why should it take him billions of years to create the universe? If he's outside of time and space, immutable, incorruptible, perfect in every way, why couldn't he just click his fingers and make it so?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    31. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sort of answered your own question, he's creating something outside of time then there is no implication how much time would pass here for us. Adams lineage does recite humans been around for not long buy don't forget how dodgy carbon dating is, decay is random and can be 'averaged' but I can try to average stock return for the next 10,000 years I'll let you know how accurate i can be

    32. Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Both you and The Pope need to grow up and get over it.

      And that part of your post gives a lot of people a very legitimate reason to dismiss you.

      The modern day Bible, with all of its interpretations, are translations of translations of stories passed down by word of mouth for generations. You really think that the very first time the story was told, thousands of years ago, it started off with 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' and ended with 'And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.'?

      Those people that take the Bible literally need to be challenged and dismissed - there are far too many things in there that do not make sense, or are outright wrong to live your life by.

      But equally, those that dismiss the Bible by its literal reading also need to be challenged and dismissed for much the same reason.

      God, if there is one, didn't make the world in seven days, but note how no one takes issue with the descriptions of *how* he made the various things in the first few verses of Genesis - 'And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.' 'And God said....' 'And God said...'.

      Why is the use of the term 'days' so discussed but the complete lack of information on how the creation happened isn't? The Bible never goes into detail on the hows and wherefores, it uses abstractions - no one laments the lack of physics surrounding the how, but everyone takes issue with the use of 'days'. Funny eh?

  19. Yep, evolution can be really fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Under the right circumstances, evolution can be quite fast. The geological history of the earth shows many massive die-offs followed by a tremendous flowering of new life forms. If there is an ecological niche available, something will adapt/evolve to fill it.

    Naturally, simpler life forms evolve faster than complex ones. Germs evolve in months. Humans evolve in tens of millennia. Plants are somewhere between the two.

    1. Re:Yep, evolution can be really fast by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Informative

      Better let the polar bears know, because it only took them 5-10k years to adapt. That's pretty quick in geologic time.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Yep, evolution can be really fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like it was a miracle!

      *rimshot*

    3. Re:Yep, evolution can be really fast by weicco · · Score: 1

      What really was a miracle was that polar bears shaved their fur, except the fancy looking bristle, moved to Africa and started to call themselved the lion! I saw this explained in a magazine so it must be true.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
  20. And now the good news by Pharmboy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is great news for the gaming industry. Now we have an actual analog to assist in making games like the Fallout series more realistic. Under normal circumstances, society would frown on creating a nuclear accident just to make video games more realistic, so it fortunate that it occurred when it did, with enough time passing for plants to adapt. Thank you Russia.

    The lead photograph for the article looks *EXACTLY* like what you would expect in a game like Fallout 3 (my current love). A baby doll sitting next to a gas mask, on a concrete floor, next to a bombed out looking window with dead plants outside in the brightly lit sun. 100% video game shot.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    1. Re:And now the good news by Slayer+Silver+Wolf · · Score: 1

      That or metro 2033

    2. Re:And now the good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might find this interesting: [link]http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html[/link]. It has quite a few pics of Chernobyl, and she seems to know WTF she's doing.

    3. Re:And now the good news by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Have you played any of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games? Unlike Fallout 3, they're more towards the FPS end of the spectrum rather than RPG, but they're also a lot more realistic than the wacky 50s sci-fi feel of the Fallout games and a hell of a lot more bleak. GSC Game World is based in Kiev and they've made multiple trips into the exclusion zone, the maps and the layout of places like Pripyat and the entire Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant are very faithfully reproduced in-game, they did an amazing job.

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RDiKxVBLJZo/SxIu6zDfuFI/AAAAAAAAANE/lnC7nXgLZxs/s1600/stalker-Shadow-of-Chernobyl_03.jpg
      http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/490/stalker.jpg
      http://www.tweakguides.com/images/STALKER_13.jpg

      I think they capture the atmosphere really well, the environment is feral and hostile and you really have to be on the lookout for radiation and anomalies. Shadow Of Chernobyl was the first game, the prequel Clear Sky was a bit of a letdown, but Call Of Pripyat is by far one of the best and most atmospheric games I've ever played.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  21. ya but... by Maglos · · Score: 1

    What does this mean for the next Fallout? I don't think it will have the same appeal if it's forested.

    1. Re:ya but... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      What does this mean for the next Fallout? I don't think it will have the same appeal if it's forested.

      You should have thought of that when you set Harold on fire at the Oasis.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:ya but... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Correction: When you *didn't* set Harold on fire at the Oasis.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  22. You are mistaken by pikine · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read their method.

    They first observe that plants start to spontaneously grow again in contamination sites despite the high radioactivity. Then they brought in seeds from uncontaminated origin. One batch goes to the contamination site, and another batch (the controlled group) goes to a decontaminated area near the site. Seeds grow fine in both batches, showing that seeds from uncontaminated origin is able to survive the radioactivity in the very first generation. The study is about the mechanism how plants naturally resist radioactivity. No evolution is taking place here.

    --
    I once had a signature.
    1. Re:You are mistaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Also, how bad can the radioactivity be if they can be in there with home depot face masks and some thin gloves? Certainly not enough to do any immediate damage to plants...

    2. Re:You are mistaken by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your scientific accuracy to the explanation of the experiment.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  23. The kids aren't all right. by SoupIsGood+Food · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Coupl'a things -

    1) Chernobyl is not over, and not contained. The "sarcophagus" was temporary at best, is crumbling now, and it's permanent replacement has been beset by budgetary, engineering and political issues that seem irresolvable.

    2) Apart from 6' trout and 10' catfish, wildlife around Chernobyl and Pripyat is absolutely not doing well. Excepting a few migratory songbirds, the place is eerily silent.

    3) But it's OK, because a few plant species turn out to be radiation-tolerant?

    No, not OK. I'm not against nuclear power wholesale, but maybe we should be taking a long, hard look at pebble-bed, 4S and thorium reactors?

    1. Re:The kids aren't all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I hate to tell you but 10' catfish aren't that uncommon. Go check the noodling sites sometime and you'll find plenty that are over 8 foot long in populated areas where rednecks eat catfish and a fair number of well documented 10 footers too. Put those same catfish in areas where the rednecks would be afraid to eat them or even use the waterways for transport and guess what you'd find? These things would thrive in the right conditions. Even 6 foot trout are known outside of radioactively contaminated areas.

      People are living and farming within 20 miles of the plant and there is a known substantial population of elk, deer, wolf, fox and others in the so-called dead zone and they've been there for years. I'm not saying it's safe or even that it's tolerable but it is happening.

      You might know enough to sound a little learned when it comes to reactors but it's nothing that anyone else here couldn't have figured out for themselves in 10 minutes using Google. What you clearly don't know about is the fact that you're dead wrong about Prypiat and it's current ecosystem.

    2. Re:The kids aren't all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coupl'a things -

      1) Chernobyl is not over, and not contained. The "sarcophagus" was temporary at best, is crumbling now, and it's permanent replacement has been beset by budgetary, engineering and political issues that seem irresolvable.

      2) Apart from 6' trout and 10' catfish, wildlife around Chernobyl and Pripyat is absolutely not doing well. Excepting a few migratory songbirds, the place is eerily silent.

      3) But it's OK, because a few plant species turn out to be radiation-tolerant?

      No, not OK. I'm not against nuclear power wholesale, but maybe we should be taking a long, hard look at pebble-bed, 4S and thorium reactors?

      1. The permanent replacement is still moving forward, and despite the problems you report is still on schedule for completion in 2013.
      2. There was a documentary a couple days ago on that place. They had at least an hour of video footage that does not agree with your statement at all.
      3. Not just plants, but insects, arachnids, birds, and small mammals. And nobody said it made everything "OK", the point is that life is proving much more robust than had been believed previously.

      And one final thing to note: The animals and plants which have repopulated that area feel more detrimental effects from humans being around than the radiation. And since most animals with any kind of mutation tend to be weaker and die off early or have reproductive issues, those genetic modifications aren't entering the gene pool.

    3. Re:The kids aren't all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll like the Energy Amplifier. This kind of reactor is subcritical: the neutrons it needs are fed from an external source (protons from an accelerator colliding with a metal). Therefore, if the reaction seems to be getting out of hand, all you have to do is shut down the accelerator and the process stops.

      Since the neutrons are supplied externally, it's also possible to burn a lot of stuff conventional reactors can't handle, including much of what we now consider "nuclear waste".

    4. Re:The kids aren't all right. by Caption+Wierd · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh please. I am a radiation expert in real life. I have been to Chernobyl. It is no more "eerily silent" there than it is in the non-contaminated areas. The surrounding area is mostly farmland and was cleared many years ago. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the plants and animals are just not as sensitive to radiation as the movies and sci fi shows suggest. That plus the fact that most of the isotopes released (iodine-131 for example) have long decayed away. Humans are more sensitive to the effects of radiation than most other creatures. When we protect humans we end up protecting the environment. That said, even though I full expect the plants to grow healthy in the downwind zone, I would not eat them for fear of further concentrating any remaining contamination they contain and raising my risk of cancer. But I don't smoke, either, for similar reasons.

    5. Re:The kids aren't all right. by Toze · · Score: 2, Informative

      All nature sounds eerily silent to people accustomed to the noise of city living. There is no hum of engines or transformers, no sirens, no screeching tires, no TV or radio. It is shocking like plunging into cold water when you step out of your car and into an environment where noise is the exception rather than the rule. At first, it sounds dead. As you begin to grow accustomed to it, however, you start hearing wind in the trees or grass, birds, etc. It sounds "desolate" because the sounds are different in volume and frequency, not because everything is dead. Moles, deer, and wolves don't make a lot of noise. There's a reason people that go way out into the bush for a long time sometimes come back and don't talk much. Silence is natural.

      I'll grant you that the containment doesn't seem promising. Plants regularly grow in radiation zones, though, afaik; they're usually a lot more radiation-tolerant than we are. Gingko trees survived at Hiroshima (still growing today; http://www.xs4all.nl/~kwanten/hiroshima.htm ), lichens are hard to affect with radiation, etc.

      Totally agreed on Thorium (liquid salt) reactors. I don't like having our nuclear power technology stuck in the 60's.

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
    6. Re:The kids aren't all right. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Judging nuclear reactors based on our experiences at Chernobyl is about as reasonable as judging cars based on the Ford Pinto. This idea needs to be chuckled out of existence.
      Nuclear, like any concentrated energy source, is dangerous. And given how concentrated it is, it's much more dangerous than gasoline, more dangerous than high explosives. But this doesn't mean we can't work with it, just that we need some careful engineering before we do.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    7. Re:The kids aren't all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "there is a known substantial population of elk, deer, wolf, fox and others in the so-called dead zone and they've been there for years. I'm not saying it's safe or even that it's tolerable but it is happening."

      This gets mentioned a lot, so I feel compelled to fill in some details. Yes, it's not safe there. Animals that breed fast and have short lifespans (both in comparison to, say, humans) can deal with radiation by doing nothing at all; they have a death rate that we would consider intolerable. But a little moment of algebra: let X be the birth rate, Y be the death rate in normal areas where humans hunt, and Z be the death rate in human-abandoned areas due to radiation. Those pockets of population in the "dead zone" are where Y Z X. In other words, the death rate from radiation can be horrible, yet less deadly than hunters and lower than the birth rate.

      How deadly are human hunters in non-radioactive areas? Well, in most places we keep the predators nearly extinct and the deer in check...

  24. Let me get out my copy of Gamma World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to roll up some random mutations...

    Maybe I'll get Leech Seed.

  25. Plant vs. Human evolution by tengeta · · Score: 1

    Its rather likely that plants have had to deal with huge amounts of radiation in the past, they have survived extinction events with far more numbers than creatures have so chances are they can deal with radiation better than we can dream of.

    --
    "They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
    1. Re:Plant vs. Human evolution by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There aren't many natural sources of substantial radiation, unless you go digging up and concentrating the relevant elements or go far enough back in earth's history that plants hadn't been invented yet. There is virtually no call for the adaptation of radiation resistance, outside of a few man made regions.

      However, as it happens, the biochemical adaptations required to survive severe dessication or extreme heat(which, like radiation, pretty much go all bull-in-a-china-shop on your genome and metabolically important molecules) happen to, in a number of cases, be pretty useful in radiation resistance as well. Bacteria like d. radiodurans, t. gammatolerans, and organisms like tardigrades are extremely radiation resistant; but as a side effect of their adaptations to heat and dessication.

      Given the survival value, particularly for seeds, of being able to survive hard times and then germinate, or aggressively seize territory(and light) left open by forest fires, it wouldn't be a total surprise if plants had picked up a few adaptations in the same vein...

    2. Re:Plant vs. Human evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we keep inventing new plants. Why, just the other day I was in my home lab and I kept tinkering around until I had invented a plant with tits.

    3. Re:Plant vs. Human evolution by quokkaZ · · Score: 1

      It's not entirely true that there are no inhabited areas with high natural background levels. In fact much higher than the global average. These include Ramsar in Iran, Guarapari in Brazil, Kerala in India and others. The interesting thing is that epidemiological studies do not find adverse health effects on humans. Which certainly raises questions about the linear no threshold model which holds that there is no safe lower limit.

      High Levels of Natural Radiation in Ramsar, Iran

    4. Re:Plant vs. Human evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There aren't many natural sources of substantial radiation

      Except, you know, sunlight. Which plants tend to bathe in all day, every day. Maybe they got some radiation resistance from living in the most powerful natural radiation on the planet for a billion or so years.

    5. Re:Plant vs. Human evolution by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The ionizing portion of sunlight is pretty slim. A little UV and not much else. Certainly not zero potential for cellular damage(but neither is simple cell division in a dark box entirely free of mutagens. Entropy just gets you sometimes)...

      Sunlight is powerful in a zergling rush sort of way; but the energy levels of each of the various photons are pretty low.

  26. No predator(s)? by An+anonymous+Frank · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Could it be that whatever fauna that survived, adapted and/or now thrives might do so under conditions perhaps harsher due to radiation, yet plausibly improved by a potentially reduced presence of any predator species, whom may not have fared as well, or may have been displaced?

    1. Re:No predator(s)? by UnCivil+Liberty · · Score: 2, Funny

      Could it be that whatever fauna that survived, adapted and/or now thrives might do so under conditions perhaps harsher due to radiation, yet plausibly improved by a potentially reduced presence of any predator species, whom may not have fared as well, or may have been displaced?

      The deer got superpowers, but the bears glow in the dark

      --
      Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
      Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
    2. Re:No predator(s)? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Yes, the radiation only kills the predators, and magically doesn't touch all the other animals.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  27. If I hear ... by PPH · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... any plants saying, "Feed me, Seymour!" in Russian, I'm leaving.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  28. And even neater... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And even neater is the plants glow in the dark! It's REALLY pretty!

  29. The plants are thriving by Provocateur · · Score: 4, Funny

    They were all active that day, talking about the weather, gossiping, and walking around. And right before the scientists and researchers drove in to the site, one of the plants yelled "CAR!" and they all stood still.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re:The plants are thriving by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      cue Gary Larson spinning in his grave.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    2. Re:The plants are thriving by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      He's not going to be happy to get in there, I'm sure of it.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  30. True by KingAlanI · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    A lot of people are nonracist but don't like his policies or find him ineffective, but those who can't stand his race probably can't stand his policies either. Think "A implies B, but B does not necessarily imply A."

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  31. I can't resist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new radioactive plant overlords.

    in Soviet Overlordsville(?!), plant radiates you

  32. Re:u mad by monkyyy · · Score: 0

    XD u two r a cute couple

    --
    warning pointless sig
  33. there is also a black fish and old people... by chanio · · Score: 0

    They are not explaining why they are now working there...
    The nuclear stuff is still boiling (sort of) and the concrete casting that surround what was the nuclear plant is expiring its license of security. So, they need to make a new box of cement that should surround the old one... (scientists don't know how to stop the boiling stuff!)

    Besides, I saw a film of a guy who went there some years ago.
    And found a 'strange black fish' that was living inside the lake near the nuclear plant.
    There were also old people still living at the country near the town.
    The army had tried to move them to other places but they insisted in returning to their only home.
    And are still living there. And seem to survive for an unknown reason.

    Local people have created a sort of myth associating the disaster with some parts of the bible.
    So, they believe that in part was god's will what had happened...

    You should see the film!

    What most ecologists mean about future dangers refer only to humans. Plants, animals and the complete ecosystem should surely endure anything. As has been happening since the begining of time.

    --
    Rwe obliged 2 save our future by choosing:O3 hole-greenhouse effect instead of accepting everydays gossip-nonsense chat?
    1. Re:there is also a black fish and old people... by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      "(scientists don't know how to stop the boiling stuff!)"

      Funny. I've heard Scientists talk about how certain elements are fission 'poisons' because they absorb neutrons without themselves fissioning and giving of more neutrons. The contexts I've seen the discussions in was how in a working reactor this is undesirable, and how reactors have to be designed to avoid the formation of such elements. It would seem like, in this case, they should be able to inject some quantity of such an element into the molten reactor core and 'poison' the fission happening, so it cools off? Why hasn't anyone tried such a thing? Is it just impossible right now to even safely drill a small hole through the containment to attempt such a poisoning?

    2. Re:there is also a black fish and old people... by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      I hit submit too soon, I meant to respond to the other part of your post, too.

      "And seem to survive for an unknown reason."

      I'm no expert on the health effects of radiation exposure, but I've been trying to do some reading on it lately (and plan to do more). If my understanding is correct (which it might not be), if you are exposed to very high levels of radiation, you die quickly - days to weeks, at a somewhat lower magnitude, the radiation kills you slowly (tumors, cancer, etc) - months or a few years. At a lower threshold still, it kills you very slowly - like exposure as an adolescent at this lower level, might lead to you having a shortened life expetency so instead of dieing at 70 or 80, maybe you die in your 50s or 60s from something like a cancer which develops later in life, but not right immediately after exposure, but in the case of someone who was already in their 50s or 60s at the time of such an exposure, it might just not have long enough time to have much effect in shortening your life.

      But, in the fairly low-exposure case, it's also my understanding that your reproductive cells can experience genetic mutations that can carry forward to future offspring. Because of that last factor, I've read that some scientists and physicians who specialize in this sort of thing, estimate that something like only 10% of the expected deaths or disabilities due to the Chernobyl disaster will occur within the first generation of those exposed.

      We (I mean the whole world when I say we - UN WHO, Ukraine Health Dept, various European national health organizations, the health community in general) really need to keep good data and continuing followup on the populations affected by Chernobyl (much of Europe to one extent or another) over the course of generations, to see what the long-term impacts are, to find out if there actually *is* increased reproductive problems, increased incidences of cancers, etc in the descendants. Also, find out if there's any increase in beneficial mutations too (e.g. improved senses, athleticism, general health, etc).

      I've even read that at very very low levels, radiation can be, possibly, pretty beneficial (the term I heard applied was 'hormesis'. However, I think that 'the experts' believe most of the people exposed, were exposed at levels too great for the hormesis effect in most cases.

  34. only one man could be so eloquent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Michael Kristopeit? Is that you?

  35. They dont mention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its Mansanto's patent!

  36. Masks Goggles and Gloves? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Try mask, sunnies, and a glove.

  37. how is this news? by Unsichtbarer_Mensch · · Score: 1

    I'll be darned if the high resistance of plants to ionizing radiation hasnt been documented since at least the 1950s ...

    --
    Du kan glomma dina ensama stunder, du kan lita paa teknikens under - Wilmer X
  38. Re:Aquired Characteristics in Animal Kingdom first by LingNoi · · Score: 1

    and how does what you say relate in anyway to:

    1) The story?
    2) The GPP troll?

  39. What by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Plants are very primitive compared to animals, and localized mutations of their cells have nearly no effect on them, so why would they be significantly affected by radioactive contamination in the first place? The whole problem with radioactive contamination and plants is that they can accumulate radioactive isotopes over their lifetime and become dangerous for humans and animals to consume.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:What by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      So you're suggesting we should be eating the local glow-in-the-dark ferrets instead?

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  40. "flourishing" because concrete is worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "flourishing" because concrete is worse. The same with the animals. They are going to be killed in a few years by damage from radiation, but until then, they'll live to breed. Whereas a wolf in the city is shot on sight, badgers poisoned, etc.

    All this fecundity is proving is that civilisation and human occupation is more dangerous than nuclear fallout.

  41. Any chance the RIAA/MPAA will read this article? by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

    Adapt or die.

    Is anyone from the RIAA/MPAA listening?

    Even the shrubbery in Russia know that much.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  42. Uh, the bible DOES have 600 years old in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, the bible DOES have 600 years old in it. It has the lineage from Adam to David and the ages of these people.

    Add the ages up and then add the other-sourced date since David and you've got the earth at 6000 years old in the bible.

    It DEFINITELY has 6000 years old. At least for mankind.

    What's odd is that so many "Christians" (if they had real faith, they wouldn't feel the need to defend their faith) point to things that compare to things we otherwise know from science etc and claim "That PROVES the bible is correct!". Yet the Brahma year is about 4 billion years. An age that roughly equates to the age of the earth and it's solar system and three such ages (they restart, just like centuries and years do) takes us to the beginning of the universe. Yet I've NEVER heard anyone point to that and proclaim that this PROVES the Hindu Buddhist faith is correct. Probably because that would "prove" the bible wrong.

  43. Remember kids!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Radiation is good for you!

    And makes your favourite plants glow on the dark, SO COOL!

  44. Just dont get too close by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Don't get too close to the local fauna, "feed me Simor, feed me!"

  45. F-Ray? by JustABlitheringIdiot · · Score: 1

    *Bender shines the F-Ray on Fry*
    Fry:
    "Ow my sperm!"

  46. review of your rebuttal by malp · · Score: 1

    +1 for sarcasm
    +1 for responding as you would to a child
    +1 for bolding the obvious, which subtly implies the obvious may be lost to ceoyoyo (59147)
    -10 for not rebutting anything ceoyoyo (59147) said

    1. Re:review of your rebuttal by tg123 · · Score: 1

      +1 for sarcasm

      +1 for responding as you would to a child

      +1 for bolding the obvious, which subtly implies the obvious may be lost to ceoyoyo (59147)

      -10 for not rebutting anything ceoyoyo (59147) said

      huh? - how rude this is slashdot I suppose ...

      my apologies if

      1) I sounded sarcastic - I was just responding to the tone of the post which I felt was saying people have an unfounded fear of radiation.

      2) responding as you would a child - I didn't mean to . However I was responding "as above" to the tone of the previous post which came across as to me as "you are a child with an unfounded fear of radiation."

      3) bolding the obvious - I was just trying to make a point as I felt that his posting of "Most areas around Chernobyl are pretty harmlessly radioactive...." was silly thing to say as why would they abandon cities?

      4) not rebutting anything ceoyoyo (59147) - I was not trying to. I was just trying to make my point of view known.

  47. Real Life Fallout by Kildjean · · Score: 1

    Has anyone looked at the pictures for Pripyat, the abandoned city? It looks so much like any of the towns depicted in Fallout 3 or New Vegas.

    --
    Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
    1. Re:Real Life Fallout by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Fallout 3 also depicts the landscape as essentially void of plant life. As we see with Chernobyl, that's probably wrong (I've only just recently begun playing Fallout 3, though, and never played the earlier Fallouts, so I suppose there could be a sort of surprise ending - perhaps things aren't as they seem at the beginning - that is, perhaps this wasn't all the result of nuclear war, but something else; don't spoil it if that's the case).

      Anyhow, at least the way the game is setup at the beginning, there was a nuclear war 200 years before the game starts. Now, I could see a thermonuclear warhead killing all plant life within, I dunno 30 or 50 kilometers of the hypocenter immediately during the blast, but after 200 years, I'd expect a pretty high degree of reforestation of the affected area - even directly under the hypocenter.

    2. Re:Real Life Fallout by Kildjean · · Score: 1

      There is a quest called Oasis, you pick it up somewhere in the north east or north west of the map. When you get it you will probably get the answer of whether there is or isn't plant life in Fallout 3 ;)

      --
      Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
  48. Re:tenets not tenants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ITYM "tenets", not "tenants"

  49. Chernobyl isn't in Russia by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    It's in Ukraine. Sure, Ukraine was part of the USSR, but it's not Russia.

  50. My theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like Genesis could have explained the Big Bang Theory and Evolution in a way that would have made sense 2000 years ago anyway.

    This is one perfectly reasonable explanation for various religions that doesn't require all but one to be wrong. If God attempted to make himself known to a people, he would likely have to make himself believable to that group. Thus their differences could lead to God demonstrating himself to them differently and thus they interpret him differently.

    I know that I could be called a 'different person' when I am at work or when I am at home, however the only real difference is who I am around, and how I respond to those differences.

  51. The REAL question. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

    If I take my next vacation near Chernobyl, will I come home with superpowers?

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  52. Uhm, what? by Benfea · · Score: 1

    You do understand that it is perfectly possible for plant species A mentioned in study B to thrive while animal species C mentioned in study D to do poorly after the Chernobyl accident, right? This study and the one you cite are not producing conflicting information unless you assume all plants and all animals respond to environmental changes identically.

  53. Oblig jurassic park by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1

    Life finds a way... Malcolm was right!

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  54. WHY Oh WHY ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHY is every OTHER change in an animal or plant on Slashdot a MUTATION but when plants CHANGE in a LITERAL SEA OF MUTATING RADIATION it is an adaptation -- YOU PEOPLE ARE WEIRD !?!?!?!?!?!