Slashdot Mirror


Jars of Irradiated Russian Animals Find a New Purpose

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."

28 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Forget fireflys! by Reasonable+Facsimile · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I want a jar of irradiated Russian animal remains!

  2. Um by jimmerz28 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can't they just use frequent flyers?

    1. Re:Um by h4rr4r · · 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.

  3. Fun! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  4. meow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    So THIS is what happened to all the bonsai kittens.

  5. Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      For those who don't get the joke it's from a cartoon. Rocky and Bullwinkle.

  6. Radiation Hormesis by HangingChad · · 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 · · 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 Talderas · · 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
    3. Re:Radiation Hormesis by ColdWetDog · · 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!
    4. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Jappus · · 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.

    5. Re:Radiation Hormesis by HangingChad · · 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
    6. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Dr.+Gamera · · 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.

    7. Re:Radiation Hormesis by nedlohs · · 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.

    8. Re:Radiation Hormesis by Anonymous Coward · · 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,

  7. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  8. Re:Daamn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, animals treat people ethically.

  9. do *not* open mystery JAR files from Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's the news?

  10. Re:Same purpose by Jappus · · 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.

  11. Re:Daamn by what2123 · · 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.

  12. Re:Daamn by Samantha+Wright · · 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!
  13. Re:I wonder... by perles · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes! Read about the Mega Mouse project. It used 7 million mice. http://www.e-radiography.net/radsafety/rad_biology.htm

  14. Re:I wonder... by dmbasso · · Score: 2

    It is still doing. Did you think the TSA exists for your security? :p

    --
    `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
  15. Minions by Quiet_Desperation · · 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.

  16. Re:I wonder... by ericloewe · · 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

  17. Re:I wonder... by sr180 · · 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!