Slashdot Mirror
Fukushima Radiation Still Poisoning Insects
sciencehabit writes: Eating food contaminated with radioactive particles may be more perilous than previously thought — at least for insects. Butterfly larvae fed even slightly tainted leaves collected near the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station were more likely to suffer physical abnormalities and low survival rates than those fed uncontaminated foliage, a new study finds. The research suggests that the environment in the Fukushima region, particularly in areas off-limits to humans because of safety concerns, will remain dangerous for wildlife for some time.
In other lingering radiation news, reader Rambo Tribble writes:
Forest detritus, contaminated in the aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster (abstract), is decaying at a much slower rate than normal, building up and creating a significant fire risk. This, in turn, is creating a real potential for the residual radioactive material to be distributed, through smoke, over a broad area of Europe and Russia. Looking at different possible fire intensities, researchers speculate, "20 to 240 people would likely develop cancer, of which 10 to 170 cases may be fatal." These figures are similar to those hypothesized for Fukushima.
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/123/e/7/mother_gaia_by_humon-d3fh24i.jpg
Glad I'm not one.
Yup, unbelievably more likely. The suffering caused by coal is just more decentralized, so fucking idiots will continue to ignore it in favor of more easily visible problems. People are goddamn retards.
The Pale Grass Blue butterfly was chosen for a reason. It is one of the most susceptible & sensitive species to environmental effects. In this case, they had to force feed them a constant diet of the most highly contaminated leaves they could find to get an indication there may be some effect. Isn't it kind of curious why no other species were included in this study?
Said the Anonymous Coward hiding behind HIS keyboard, pretending to be.... god knows what ;)
Just sayin.. :)
Chernobyl is *mostly* safe but there are still, and will remain still, some residual effects.
To be honest, the stupid war with russia is probably more dangerous to the folks of that region right now however.
On the other hand fear of Chernobyl radiation may well be keeping soldiers out, making it paradoxically one of the safer areas in the region.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Why don't you move to Fukushima or Chernnobyl?
Fukushima: too many insects. Chernobyl: too many forest fires.
Those responsible for this study likely picked this species to serve as an indicator species. Indicator species must be indigenous to the area (check) and are generally the most susceptible to ecological upset (also check).
In high-profile environmental disasters (like reactor leaks), factors such as bio-amplification and bio-accumulation may lead to delayed consequences throughout an ecosystem; indicator species are used as canaries of sorts.
This seems to me like a commonplace study being somewhat misconstrued and given a click-bait headline (in the traditional Slashdot manner).
This is what the consequences of radionuclides in the food chain looks like. The next step are the lizards and birds that eat these insects. It's not surprising that this is hard to understand, because it happens so slowly.
We are seeing the slow consequence of releasing radionuclides into the environment, they are absorbed into metabolisms because they present as micronutrients that biota can utilise for growth and maintenance. Once ingested into the body they act in two ways.
The first, as alpha, beta and gamma emitters they act directly on the surrounding tissues to gestate cancers in the body, a process that takes about 6 years in humans depending on how energetic the radio isotope is.
The second is through genetic damage to the DNA. These damaged genes are passed down through generations and when certain combinations meet the result is transgenic disease.
These cover the radioactive effects of the emitter, however there is also some elements that are highly toxic as well which introduces a third vector based on toxicity. For those people directly exposed who ingested radio-isotopes at 3/11 it will be roughly 2017 when the cancer rates start increasing, following that bio-accumulation inserts a random period of time and distributions of radioactive materials before they are absorbed causing a statistical increase of particular types of cancer deaths in humans.
Over time we will no longer be talking about death rates but failed births and an overall reduction of the capacity for species, including humans, to reproduce. This will be coupled with a higher rate of mutations and abnormalities for successful reproductions. This will continue to occur for the halflife of the isotope multiplied by 20 daughter products before an isotope is benign. For sr90 with a half life of 600 years this means a 12000year decay cycle, for pu-239 it's a 500000 year decay cycle, from humanities perspective this is effectively permanent.
If anyone wanted a plausible explanation for the Fermi Paradox I believe this is a candidate.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Go to the original paper, not TFA, and scroll to the bottom for a comment from the authors with links to complete data and longer discussion of the subject. Your concerns are all answered.
http://www.nature.com/srep/201...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The word "outlier" is used only once in the whole study. It is in the section on mortality.
Show this graph to anybody and let them point out which of the 6 data points is the "outlier". I highly doubt that they would pick the data point labeled "Motomiya".
Every time I see the word "radiation" used interchangeably with "radioactivity", I cringe.
And then I start wondering what else they got wrong....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The direcly linked fukushima article is very low on numbers (do journalists think people are allergic to them or something?), but it links to the actual scientific article. There we find this plot of the mortality rate as a function of ingested radioactivity for the pale green butterfly larvae. The changes in mortality are large, from 20% to 80%. The trend is positive, but noisy. The significance of a positive trend is about 3 sigma.
The second article refutes you. There is a die-off of soil bacteria, so the fallen trees, leaves, etc are not rotting properly. This is currently on-going, and we just don't know if the radiation poisoning will work it's way up the food chain either. Mineral content in the soil will start to drop, trees might start dieing and basically starving. Russia might need to bring in fresh, non-radiated dirt and hope it's microbes colonize the now-dead zones, if it's not still too irradiated for them. Small microbes, thin cell walls, doesn't take much radiation to really damage and kill them. The animals have already had mutant offspring a few years afterwards but healthy animals have moved back in. Hopefully the soil microbes will either move back in too or have a radiation-resistant mutation that allows them to grow there again.
The oceans around Hawaii will probably be damaged too, and a huge swatch of Asia / Europe could be irradiated if the forests around Chernobyl burns all it's accumulating debris. I have no idea how much study has been done on plant growth rates in Japan after we nuked them; I doubt anyone there had the time or knew about soil die-off with all the other damage from the war.
Sadly Chernobyl was due to human stupidity and lack of communication. The equipment only failed because the head engineer purposely pushed the reactor and didn't even bother telling his engineers working in said reactor. Japan plant was also plagued with low-quality construction in addition to being built in a bad location geographically. Safety measures that should have worked failed, the valve that is still leaking is in a very tight space under several feet of highly radiated water, so radiated their submersible drones keep dying.
I know, but I'm afraid it's no use pointing out facts. I'd like to think anti-nuke religious zealots could be reasoned with, and maybe a small percentage of them can, and possibly it's worthwhile trying, but for the most part they will just cotinue frothing. It's not as bad as the berserk murdering kind of religious zealoutry, but that doesn't mean the worst elements should get to dictate humanity's policy.
I have very serious reservations about nuclear power implementations, but it's about real problems, not boogeymen. As disappointed as I am with design shortcuts, safety levels which I feel must be made far better, whistling a happy tune instead of dealing with waste, and lackadaisical oversight, I still am in awe of the potential, and I believe that science and engineering are equal to the task if we will just unleash them in the commitment-equivalent of the manhattan project.
Let's face it. Human failings exist. We have a choice stemming from that axiom. We can either give up daring to advance, or we can learn from our mistakes, ensure that we never repeat the same ones, and expand our efforts to foresee new ones and avoid them. Specifically, both Chernobyl and Fukushima were perfectly foreseeable with the knowledge and insight that existed beforehand.
Are you absolutely sure about that? In what context? Do you doubt that background radiation is instrumental in mutations that lie behind evolution? Have you wondered what life forms would exist on earth if there were no evolution?
For everything there is a level above which there is a danger or certain lethality, and below which it is often beneficial or even necessary. Too much [water, salt, potassium, calcium, ...] and you are a dead duck. Too little, and you are a dead duck. In the case of radiation, a reasonable amount almost certainly leads to benefits to humanity, while still harming some portion of individuals.
Actually, had Fukushima had US standards, the backup generators would have been placed above flood levels and the disaster likely averted. Japan's ignorance of this known and acknowledged design flaw was largely their own fault, IMO. Chernobyl, as you said, was an intentional test that wasn't communicated properly. The other major non-test nuclear disaster, Three Mile Island, was caused by an equipment failure followed by misdiagnosis by engineers (a light indicated a valve was closed when it was in fact stuck open).. Again, though, shoddy safety standards were at fault.
As for the oceans around Hawaii, they probably were damaged more by the 106 above ground nuclear bomb tests the US did at the Pacific Proving Grounds - I doubt Fukushima and Chernobyl will ever do as much damage as those did, even if all of the reactors there had resulted in full meltdowns..
These are possibly both true.
Chernobyl happened nearly 30 years ago, but it was 100+ times larger than Fukushima and released a lot more long-lived radionucleides.
Fukushima's footprint is a lot smaller and will dissipate a lot more quickly.
Both affected areas are small in comparison to their isolation zones. In general there are areas with much higher naturally occuring radiation/radioactivity levels than the isolation zones, many of which are inhabited.
Even with these accidents (and all the other incidents combined), the risk factor of nuclear power is much higher than the _direct_ dangers of coal or hydro power.