Jars of Irradiated Russian Animals Find a New Purpose

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jars of Irradiated Russian Animals Find a New Purpose

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday May 9, 2012 @03:30AM from the osha-radiation-guidelines-for-zone-trippers dept.

scibri writes with bits and pieces from the article: "From the early 1950s to the end of the cold war, nearly 250,000 animals were systematically irradiated in the Russian town of Ozersk. Fearful of a nuclear attack by the United States, the Soviet Union wanted to understand how radiation damages tissues and causes diseases such as cancer. Now, these archives have become important to a new generation of radiobiologists, who want to explore the effects of the extremely low doses of radiation — below 100 millisieverts — that people receive during medical procedures such as computed-tomography diagnostic scans, and by living close to the damaged Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan."

86 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

News and Truth have a very limited half-lfe... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 03:35 · Score: 0, Interesting

There was already a longterm study release a few weeks ago that confirmed that dental x-rays and such are a source of common brain tumors....how long until those stories get taken down is anyone's guess....now move along citizen...
1. Re:News and Truth have a very limited half-lfe... by Iskender · 2012-05-09 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  There was already a longterm study release a few weeks ago that confirmed that dental x-rays and such are a source of common brain tumors....how long until those stories get taken down is anyone's guess....now move along citizen...
  What the fuck are you on about?
  That story is *all over* the net. NBC, ABC, Washington Post, Fox, Reuters, and numerous smaller sites. The paper itself is to be published (if it wasn't already published) in Cancer, which is the journal of the American Cancer Society.
  If you actually honestly think that story or this Russian story will somehow disappear you're most likely paranoid, and not in the colloquial sense either.
  And who was stupid enough to moderate the quoted comment up? It's just paranoid rambling with little connection to the story above.
2. Re:News and Truth have a very limited half-lfe... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the study that claimed a set of 4 dental xrays cause a certain type of tumor but a set of 20 dental xrays does not? And all data collected from patient surveys? How much more bullsh!t can a study be?
Forget fireflys! by Reasonable+Facsimile · 2012-05-09 03:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

I want a jar of irradiated Russian animal remains!
Um by jimmerz28 · 2012-05-09 03:37 · Score: 4, Funny

Can't they just use frequent flyers?
1. Re:Um by Iniamyen · 2012-05-09 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  This was exactly my reaction. Talk about unnecessary exposure.
2. Re:Um by gstrickler · 2012-05-09 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  You have to wait until they die. However, I see no ethical issue with using TSOs.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
3. Re:Um by h4rr4r · 2012-05-09 04:29 · Score: 2
  
  How so?
  If I can double my income by being a frequent flier than some increase in cancer risk must surely be worth it. The question to me seems only how much is that risk worth to you.
4. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  That depends, how much for you to take the exposure risk for me?
Fun! by serviscope_minor · 2012-05-09 03:37 · Score: 4, Funny

Sounds even more fun than a barrel of radioactive monkey parts!

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Daamn by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 03:39 · Score: 0

Thats fucked up. 250.000 animals...
PETA its going mad reading this shit.
1. Re:Daamn by X0563511 · 2012-05-09 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure PETA didn't matter to the former Soviet Union.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
2. Re:Daamn by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 03:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  In Soviet Russia, animals treat people ethically.
3. Re:Daamn by what2123 · 2012-05-09 04:00 · Score: 2
  
  That was obvious based on the fact that bears rode unicycles. And yet, people try to tell me dogs don't have morels. The hell is wrong with people.
4. Re:Daamn by Samantha+Wright · 2012-05-09 04:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They don't. They prefer white mushrooms to morels.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
5. Re:Daamn by ColdWetDog · 2012-05-09 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  What do dogs want with mushrooms?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
6. Re:Daamn by Thanshin · 2012-05-09 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  And yet, people try to tell me dogs don't have morels. The hell is wrong with people.
  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/morel
7. Re:Daamn by couchslug · 2012-05-09 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Good thing no animals die in the wild or as livestock.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
8. Re:Daamn by Muad'Dave · 2012-05-09 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  I have a Scottish Terrier that adores wild mushrooms - probably the toxic ones. He snuffles around leisurely eating them until my wife tells him not to, then he runs about gobbling them up before she can find them and pull them up from under the leaves.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
meow by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 03:39 · Score: 2, Funny

So THIS is what happened to all the bonsai kittens.
I wonder... by swx2 · 2012-05-09 03:41 · Score: 1

Did the US do similar studies? It seems like it would have been a pretty good idea to study those effects during the cold war.
1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 03:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
2. Re:I wonder... by Trent+Hawkins · 2012-05-09 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Well I think just about any test of nukes had involved farm animals.
  I remember the navy did a test of nuclear explosions on ships and as part of the test they loaded up ships and subs with cows and blew them up.
3. Re:I wonder... by swx2 · 2012-05-09 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  part of me is going: wtf? Why?
  and another part of me is going: that's fucking awesome.
  
  I must have played too many video games... >_>
4. Re:I wonder... by perles · 2012-05-09 04:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes! Read about the Mega Mouse project. It used 7 million mice. http://www.e-radiography.net/radsafety/rad_biology.htm
5. Re:I wonder... by dmbasso · 2012-05-09 04:16 · Score: 2
  
  It is still doing. Did you think the TSA exists for your security? :p
  
  --
  `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
6. Re:I wonder... by ericloewe · 2012-05-09 05:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The TSA is actually a complex study that uses a huge sample:
  TSA agents are the chronically exposed
  Frequent travellers are the regularly exposed
  Occasional travellers are the occasionally exposed
  Backscatter scanners are the real deal
  mm-Wave scanners are the placebo
7. Re:I wonder... by Lumpy · 2012-05-09 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  "Did the US do similar studies? It seems like it would have been a pretty good idea to study those effects during the cold war."
  We did not use animals, we used the American Indians instead.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
8. Re:I wonder... by Trent+Hawkins · 2012-05-09 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  well how else do you know how a previously unseen weapon will effect people other then by blowing up something living with it to see what would happen.
9. Re:I wonder... by sr180 · 2012-05-09 13:19 · Score: 2
  
  The Australians and the British simply had their soldiers walking through the falling mushroom clouds of nuclear tests. They then denied that this activity caused cancers later in life and refused to provide compensation or support for it.
  
  --
  In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
Same purpose by Infiniti2000 · 2012-05-09 03:43 · Score: 1

It's not really a new purpose, just new scientists with more advanced equipment and procedures. I'm surprised the tissues were saved.
1. Re:Same purpose by Jappus · 2012-05-09 03:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, its probably telling that even the Russians have not yet found a way to permanently deal with radioactive waste that does not offend people. :P
  Joking aside, why would you discard this stuff? Unless such biological samples are contaminated, completely decayed or have completely lost their essential and interesting properties, the cost of storing them is usually negligibly in contrast to the cost of recreating those samples if you need them.
  After all, back then nobody much cared about irradiating 250k animals. Nowadays even the Russians would be up to their gills in activists and their local kind of PETA members if they did something like that even semi-publically.
2. Re:Same purpose by ColdWetDog · 2012-05-09 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno. Formalin that has sat in a jar for 60 years isn't my idea of a good time. It will be interesting to see if they can get useful info out of the specimens. Remember that most of the new, fancy diagnostic techniques require different handling than what was typical for light microscopy in the Soviet Union back then (who the hell knows what they fixed those samples in?).
  But it's certainly worth trying. The samples aren't getting in any better condition just sitting there.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Of course... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 03:43 · Score: 4, Funny

the fine members of Soviet Russia would do something like this. I can easily see a few portly Soviet generals overseeing labs of svelte Soviet women systematically irradiating squirrels for the Motherland.
1. Re:Of course... by ColdWetDog · 2012-05-09 04:13 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I can easily see a few portly Soviet generals overseeing labs of svelte Soviet women systematically irradiating squirrels for the Motherland.
  That has got to be the most perverted sentence I've seen on Slashdot all month. Back to 4Chan with you!
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Of course... by Mindcontrolled · 2012-05-09 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Disturbing, indeed, but yet.....
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
3. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 04:54 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  For those who don't get the joke it's from a cartoon. Rocky and Bullwinkle.
4. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  I can easily see a few portly Soviet generals overseeing labs of svelte Soviet women systematically irradiating squirrels for the Motherland.
  I've seen this hentai...
5. Re:Of course... by HornWumpus · 2012-05-09 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  I think they should have a 'Rocky and Bullwinkle' festival in Moscow. I bet all the 'Fearless leader' jokes would go over well.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Radiation Hormesis by HangingChad · 2012-05-09 03:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

Back in the day we were still doing radiation experiments in the U.S., the low dose groups consistently outlived the controls. The theory of radiation hormesis has been fairly well documented since the 50's.
The most supported version of how it works is that low levels of ionizing radiation do minor damage to DNA while triggering the repair mechanisms. While the DNA repair is happening, it fixes more than the damage from the ionizing radiation, cleaning up other little problems along the way. Obviously that's the highly simplified explanation, the details are mind numbingly complex. The interesting conclusion would be finding the exact line between a helpful dose and one that does more damage than the repair mechanisms can fix. It really takes a hell of a dose to raise your lifetime cancer risk, so I'm curious to see the study conclusions.
So those people who used to go sit in old uranium mines to inhale that radon gas might have been on to something.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
1. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 03:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Quoting wikipedia, "Consensus reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) argue that there is no evidence for hormesis in humans and in the case of the National Research Council, that hormesis is outright rejected as a possibility. Therefore, the Linear no-threshold model (LNT) continues to be the model generally used by regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure."
  There's not been actual scientific evidence for radiation hormesis in humans, despite it being your pet theory.
2. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Gothmolly · 2012-05-09 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  So its like defragging your hard drive?
  
  --
  I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
3. Re:Radiation Hormesis by DanTheStone · 2012-05-09 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  We had that whole stupid discussion last week. Even if you like to believe it's the case, it's not been scientifically proven, and there's lots of evidence that radiation causes cancer. http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/05/01/1420228/scientific-jigsaw-puzzle-fitting-the-pieces-of-the-low-level-radiation-debate
4. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Talderas · 2012-05-09 03:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There's not been actual scientific evidence for radiation hormesis in humans, despite it being your pet theory.
  I suspect that the reason for that is... you know... doing it in a controlled fashion to be able to test and gather evidence.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
5. Re:Radiation Hormesis by ne0n · 2012-05-09 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  So those people who used to go sit in old uranium mines to inhale that radon gas might have been on to something.
  Yeah, they became immune to cancer. And if they do, all that's prescribed is a round of chemo. Just don't make 'em angry.
  
  --
  $ :(){ :|:& };:
6. Re:Radiation Hormesis by poity · 2012-05-09 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  seems to me it's more like running scandisk, and in addition to fixing read/write errors it also improves grammar in your document files.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
7. Re:Radiation Hormesis by ColdWetDog · 2012-05-09 04:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm not sure that you're winning your argument here. For most people, random insertions and deletions would likely improve their grammar.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
8. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Jappus · 2012-05-09 04:06 · Score: 2
  
  So its like defragging your hard drive?
  I'd compare it more to cleaning your display.
  You can live with not doing it, but taking a soft cloth greatly improves things. Using newspaper sheets is somewhat pointless for most displays. Taking sandpaper is pretty much the definition of a Pyrrhic victory. Taking a sandblaster, though, is quite generally considered the sign of a thoroughly confused mind.
9. Re:Radiation Hormesis by HangingChad · 2012-05-09 04:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There's not been actual scientific evidence for radiation hormesis in humans, despite it being your pet theory.
  These were animal studies and it's not my pet theory. I was directly involved in many of those studies as a staff scientist and I don't give a rat's ass what UNSCEAR says, I saw it over and over again.
  The background cancer rate in humans is 1 in 3, so there would have to be a huge population study to validate the findings in humans and it's just not going to happen unless large populations of humans are exposed to varying yet highly precise levels of ionizing radiation.
  And, just for the record, UNSCEAR couldn't find a black cat on a white field at high noon with a microscope.
  
  --
  That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
10. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Dr.+Gamera · 2012-05-09 04:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There's not been actual scientific evidence for radiation hormesis in humans, despite it being your pet theory.
  It's not hormesis, per se, but it's clear that humans (and other lifeforms) can endure at least the low levels of radiation coming from their own bodies. Humans are about 0.35% potassium by mass; 0.0117% of potassium is potassium-40; potassium-40, which undergoes beta decay, has a half-life of 1.248 * 10^9 years. Each 1 kg of body mass has about 410 micrograms of potassium-40; that's 6.2 * 10^18 potassium-40 atoms. 1.248 * 10^9 years is 3.938 * 10^16 seconds, so roughly 1 out of every 3.938 * 10^16 potassium-40 atoms decays every second. Out of the 6.2 * 10^18 potassium-40 atoms in each kg of body mass, that's about 160 atoms. Average adult weight is something like 70 kg, so figure 11200 potassium-40 atoms are undergoing beta decay inside the average adult body every second.
11. Re:Radiation Hormesis by gstrickler · 2012-05-09 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's a policy dominated by politics, not by the science. The available data don't support LNT, but it's politically unacceptible to say otherwise because the opponents will then accuse you of all sorts of things using logical fallacies to extrapolate to absurdity.
  The way they can maintain the false premise of LNT is that the curve is slight, and any sufficiently short segment of a curve can be approximated by a straight line, so as long as you're only looking at a narrow range of exposures, you can continue to pretend that the curve actually matches the LNT theory.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
12. Re:Radiation Hormesis by phantomfive · 2012-05-09 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  That is seriously fascinating. Glad you posted this.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
13. Re:Radiation Hormesis by nedlohs · 2012-05-09 04:35 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And, just for the record, UNSCEAR couldn't find a black cat on a white field at high noon with a microscope.
  If you were restricted to only viewing through the microscope I can see that being difficult.
14. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Spykk · 2012-05-09 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  I'm afraid your analogy does not meet the Current Analogy Requirements for analogies on slashdot. A more correct response would have been:
  
  So its like taking your car to the mechanic for an oil change and having him repair the failing alternator he noticed while he was in there?
  We take standards seriously here at slashdot and would like you to please be more careful in the future.
15. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  There has been 0 research done for low exposures, despite LNT being your pet "theory".
  You cannot say "there is no evidence" when NO RESEARCH has been done in the first place. It is like saying there is no evidence of bacteria causing illness and then saying that microscopes are heresy.
  LNT was established in the 50s by a UN committee for exposures on the level of nuclear blasts, based on evidence from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and similar large-dose exposures. At the time it was noted that NO DATA exists for low level radiation and that LNT should not be used to extrapolate low level exposure and its effects on population.
  This apparently has NOT stopped the uneducated or otherwise ignorant from applying LNT to exposure levels where LNT was never meant to go. That is below 100mSv acute exposure, or 400mSv/yr low level background (yes, some people live in areas with 200-300mSv/yr and experience no increased tumor rates)
  ALL evidence points that LNT does NOT apply to below 100mSv exposures. Stop applying it there!!
16. Re:Radiation Hormesis by hbar+squared · 2012-05-09 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Sooo, it's basically defragging your genome?
17. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  You can also see this from the quotation from UNSCEAR that they know that LNT is wrong. 'Everyone' thinks its wrong, but the politically correct thing is to ignore science these days. You see - scientifically based policy is so 1950s - we have a 'better way' - just get bureaucrats with political science degrees to _decide_ what is right.
  Its the start of the next wave in global government - soviet style top down stupidity.
  Wind & Solar power, garbage & recycling, DDT, Roundup, radiation, nuclear power - all the 'common knowledge' on these subjects - the global rich people's consensus - is largely wrong.
18. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 05:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/
  The conventional approach for radiation protection is based on the ICRP's linear, no threshold (LNT) model of radiation carcinogenesis, which implies that ionizing radiation is always harmful, no matter how small the dose. But a different approach can be derived from the observed health effects of the serendipitous contamination of 1700 apartments in Taiwan with cobalt-60 (T1/2 = 5.3 y). This experience indicates that chronic exposure of the whole body to low-dose-rate radiation, even accumulated to a high annual dose, may be beneficial to human health. Approximately 10,000 people occupied these buildings and received an average radiation dose of 0.4 Sv,
19. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Tyr07 · 2012-05-09 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  That level of radiation you speak of you receive from the sun.
  We're constantly hit with natural radiation (vs a man made source) constantly.
  I really don't recommend you inhale radon gas. It's possible that the radiation was treating certain affliction as radiation
  can kill many things, but the side affect is it also kills you.
  It's one of those - may make you feel better for the moment but make you feel a lot worse later.
20. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  I hate to burst your bubble, but that study is utter garbage and does not represent low level radiation exposure.
  1. page 19, figure 2. Look at it. Exposure to levels up to 0.2Gy were below LNT. 0.2Gy is not low level radiation! At 1Gy exposure your hair falls out, for Pete's sake!
  2. there has been NO research about low level exposure to background levels.
  3. there has been absolutely no research at near 0 exposure levels - a lab has been proposed for this. It has not been built.
  Since there are no facilities to measure effects of radiation at low levels on test subjects, all we have is anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence points to the fact that
  1. you can prime your body for higher exposure with a lower exposure
  2. people live in areas with 20mSv/yr background exposure do not experience any more tumors than people living in areas with 1mSv/yr background exposure.
  http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/ramsar-natural-radioactivity/ramsar.html
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran#Radioactivity
  So basically, LNT is garbage below its intended range (ie. nuclear bomb blast range) - levels of 100mSv acute or 400mSv/yr background.
21. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  This is a 'scientific consensus' paper, authored by the UN, and quoted on wikipedia?
  All three are markers for the most anti-scientific, anti-nuclear and pro-green attitudes possible...
  Color me unimpressed....
22. Re:Radiation Hormesis by sootman · 2012-05-09 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  > Obviously that's the highly simplified explanation, the details are mind numbingly complex.
  No, that's the radiation. :-)
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
23. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Hartree · 2012-05-09 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  There has been some preliminary work done by someone at NMSU with microbes (D Radiodurans) grown in an ultralow radiation level environment. D. radiodurans is incredibly resistant to radiation, so it's an interesting organism to work with for radiation related work.
  There was also some work done in Europe by Planel in the 80s.
  Neither of these appear to agree with LNT at very low levels of exposure.
  It's still ongoing as of the last I could find.
  More of this research needs to be done in good controlled fashion. Sadly, it's not a subject I suspect will generate a stampede of funding.
  As you say, extremely low level effects and or work on more complex organisms is going to be challenging. Just the food and atmosphere for ultra low exposure would be quite a challenge given the normal background levels.
24. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Dr.+Gamera · 2012-05-09 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Ugh, I think this is actually off by a factor of 2. Roughly ONE-HALF of every 3.938 * 10^16 potassium-40 atoms decays every second. So figure 5600 potassium-40 atoms are undergoing beta decay inside the average adult body every second. Sorry. I'm clearly not a radiochemist.
Isn't it obvious? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 03:46 · Score: 1

More ionizing radiation = increased chance of mutation in cells = higher chance of certain diseases if it smashes in to the right genes at the right times.
I'm sure there has been reports all over the place that have linked increases in illness with those who get frequent x-rays and CT scans for whatever reasons (be it mouth x-rays for dentistry reasons)
No, what I would like to see is the TSA forced to go through their own scanners to see how they like it.
For every person that goes through, they deserve to go through as well.
Let's see them in a few years when their cancers have cancer.
oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 03:49 · Score: 0

In b4 spiderman, werewolves, or manbearpig.
do *not* open mystery JAR files from Russia by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 03:50 · Score: 2, Funny

What's the news?
1. Re:do *not* open mystery JAR files from Russia by Talderas · 2012-05-09 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  That PETA hasn't made an outcry yet.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I hear thundering hooves by jklovanc · 2012-05-09 04:26 · Score: 1

Let loose the tin hat brigade
Minions by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-05-09 04:28 · Score: 3, Funny

There is only one sane, rational thing to do with these things.
BUILD AN ARMY OF GLOWING SUPERMUTANT BEASTS!
Seriously, research into (pffft!) cancer? Fuck that pansy noise.
Next phase? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 05:07 · Score: 0

I suppose the citizens of Chernobyl were simply the next phase of this experiment...
An anonymous coward posted it by aepervius · 2012-05-09 05:26 · Score: 1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/ It might not be *enough* evidence to draw a conclusion, but that certainly put a damper on "no" evidence.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Re:safdsa by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 05:50 · Score: 0

ayto to sxolio einai gia na to vlepoun oi ellhnes psefto-peirates pou lene oti yposthrizoun thn anwnymia
den tha svhstei pote.
Re:safdsa by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 06:01 · Score: 0

ayto to sxolio einai gia na to vlepoun oi ellhnes psefto-peirates pou lene oti yposthrizoun thn anwnymia
den tha svhstei pote.
kai ti einai anwnymia gia sena
Are they tasty? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 06:06 · Score: 0

Who cares - what do they taste like?
Not 100 millisieverts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-09 08:32 · Score: 0

100 millisieverts is a really really huge dose. About a third of what one would get in a lifetime, without medical scans, or twice the amount a US radiation worker is allowed to bathe in per year.
xkcd not popular enough yet?
test by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-20 15:27 · Score: 0

BBA is J