"Severe Abnormalities" Found In Fukushima Butterflies

Dupple writes "The collapse of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant caused a massive release of radioactive materials to the environment. A prompt and reliable system for evaluating the biological impacts of this accident on animals has not been available. This study suggests the accident caused physiological and genetic damage to the pale grass blue Zizeeria maha, a common lycaenid butterfly in Japan. We collected the first-voltine adults in the Fukushima area in May 2011, some of which showed relatively mild abnormalities. The F1 offspring from the first-voltine females showed more severe abnormalities, which were inherited by the F2 generation. Adult butterflies collected in September 2011 showed more severe abnormalities than those collected in May. Similar abnormalities were experimentally reproduced in individuals from a non-contaminated area by external and internal low-dose exposures. We conclude that artificial radionuclides from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant caused physiological and genetic damage to this species."

Comments

butterfly effect?

[yagu]

How does this affect the butterfly effect? This could be chaos!

Re:butterfly effect?

[nitehawk214]

Whoosh.

The sound made by those butterfly wings.

Re:butterfly effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not funny. The full extent of the damage can be seen in these photos here.

Every time something nuclear comes up, someone has to come along and undermine it with these petty jokes.

Re:butterfly effect?

[oh_my_080980980]

That's Mothra you moron....

Re:butterfly effect?

[Kidbro]

The fact is, there is no "clean" energy that can be built anywhere.

did I miss anything?

Yes. Nobody has said that there's a one size fits all clean energy source, so pretending one required and start attacking that false hypothesis is nothing but a straw man technique.
By your reasoning, the entire world is dead of starvation, as there's pretty much no source of food that can be grown everywhere. Different solutions for different locations.

For the record, I'm relatively pro nuclear power - but you're still arguing against a straw man.

Re:OH SHIT!

[MyLongNickName]

I came here to post the same thing and provide a link for the younger Slashdotters

http://dreager1.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mothrabattleforear1622.jpg

Dumbasses

[Anonymous Coward]

This is forever. It's genetically inherited and it can NEVER be cured. There is no way to know how bad the effects will be (i.e. disease, immunity response, deformities, life span, etc) in the offspring for all generations. And all you can do is make jokes and actually excuse it!! Wow... Is something wrong with your brainwashed, apathetic, sorry excuse for minds? They used to say the same things about cigarettes except this can never be quit, and it effects all these victims' children and their children and on and on... Ya, it's real fucking funny. It's people like you that make this world shit.

Trivial changes to pollen and nectar eaters

[Anonymous Coward]

I love science. But this is barely news. These creatures eat the sweet surface juices and pollen, and develop at a rate so fantastic it make them a source of childhood wonder. Of course they'll be the first to be affected. A reduced fore-wing size will not unravel the entire food chain, and very importantly: evolution will push back. This species has an enormous population that is unaffected by radiation. If the small wings are an advantage going forward: great. If not, their neighbors will out compete them, and the mutants will die out.

Wake me when they have a stable population of 6 legged dogs.

Re:Trivial changes to pollen and nectar eaters

[MobyDisk]

I find it newsworthy. And interesting.

These creatures eat the sweet surface juices and pollen, and develop at a rate so fantastic it make them a source of childhood wonder.

That is a good lay explanation of why this is not scientifically unexpected. But that doesn't mean it is unimportant. Most news articles have been focused on the direct human impact of the Fukushima disaster. But it is important for people to understand that even if the environmental impact is not significant to large long-lived mammals, it is significant to smaller beings. Ultimately, we depend on their survival, albeit indirectly.

Either way, this is valuable research. It is a good baseline to compare to in years to come.

Re:Damage?

[MightyMartian]

Oh, I see, so this is some sort of semantics pissing match you want to win. Call it what you like, but the odds are far greater that we're going to be dealing with very few beneficial mutations, and more than likely a good many bad ones, but hey, if it somehow makes you feel like you've won a debate, then so be it. In fact, I recommend you go and get some substantial dosage of radiation right now. After all, you can't call it damage until your dick falls off.

Re:Damage?

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't call it damage until your dick falls off.

Forgive him. He works for a tobacco company.

Re:Damage?

[MightyMartian]

Indeed. "Why, you can't call those malignant growths in your lungs harmful until you actually die. For all you know, they could give you superpowers!"

When you have severely malformed wings and eyes and other developmental abnormalities of a clearly genetic nature in a population, many of which are clearly deleterious from a purely fitness measurement, then it's not going over the top to call it "damage".

Re:Damage?

[MyLongNickName]

There are no "beneficial" changes. There are only changes, in the form of mutations. The ones that do not produce viable offspring die. The ones that do continue to survive.

To question whether this change is beneficial is like asking whether water is good or evil.

A thousand times "wrong". In the context of evolutionary theory, a beneficial mutation provides a "benefit"... I know this is a radical logical leap. A beneficial change would be a mutation that allows an organism to better compete and ultimately have more offspring. It is nothing at all like asking about good or evil, it is about being better suited to the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Beneficial_mutations

That's not a bug on that butterfly

[davidwr]

It's a feature!

Yes, folks, we now have real bugs with features.

I'm sick of the scaremongering

[he-sk]

It's the butterflies' fault. If they had not stopped with the development of nuclear power 30 years ago, they would not suffer from these "abnormalities". After all, modern reactor designs are intrinsically safe!

Wait. What?!

Re:Damage?

[rmstar]

I have a pretty strong biology background (MD)

Haha, that's a good one. Could have been:

I have a pretty strong mathematics background (acountant)

and been about as funny.

But just FYI, wether a change is beneficial or not evolutionary is a rather subtle thing. Just consider sickle cell anemia, which sucks, but can protect you from malaria.