Published: March 1st, 2012 at 1:12 pm ET
|
Title: Radiation and evolution: Surviving fallout
Source: Economist (Print Edition)
Date: March 3, 2012 edition
THE disaster last year at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, caused by an earthquake and tsunami, scored seven on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES). No worse rating exists. Radiation is harmful to living things, yet the long-term effects of persistently high levels of background radiation on ecosystems are poorly understood. With this in mind, a team led by Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina and Anders Moller of the University of Paris-Sud set out to compare bird species dwelling near the Fukushima plant with those living at the site of another nuclear incident that scored a seven on the INES: the Ukrainian town of Chernobyl [...][...] when researchers looked at the 14 bird species that lived in both regions, they found that the same level of radiation was associated with twice as large a drop in bird numbers in Fukushima as in Chernobyl.
The reasons for this are not clear. It is possible that the composition of the radionuclides are proving more dangerous to the Fukushima birds than they are to the birds near Chernobyl. But Dr Mousseau suggests a more likely explanation is that evolution has already been at work near Chernobyl, killing off individual birds that cannot cope with the background radiation and allowing the genes of those that have some tolerance to be passed on. The birds at Fukushima are only beginning to face the evolutionary challenge of living in a radioactive world.
Even though the article says the reasons are not clear, it claims “Remarkably, they found that some species seem to develop a tolerance for radioactivity over time.” Yet it clearly says the tolerance explanation is only the ‘more likely’ reason compared to the other explanation — that Fukushima’s radionuclide composition is more dangerous.
Read the report here
Published: March 1st, 2012 at 1:12 pm ET
|
sending...
Who came up with this silly rating scale?
If Chernobyl was a 7, then what is Fukushima with how many core and spent fuel pools gone? Not to mention being beside the largest ocean on the planet while Chernobyl was in the middle of the continent. Fukushima – a 70?
Report Comment
cnsrndctzn san
hajimemashite
Doozo yoroshiku
Fukushima wa nana ja arimasen. Fukushima wa hachi no nana(s) desu.
I just tried to say is 'fuku is not a seven' 'fuku is eight sevens'
in Nihingo romaji. Only four weeks in, so its most likey not correct. 8 7's in the space of about 2 football fields.
Another head patting 'there there' piece. Don't worry retainer class we've got our best and brights on IT.
Stay calm carry on
I love that last line 'The birds at Fukushima are only beginning to face the evolutionary challenge of living in a radioactive world.'
And by extension, us, Economist? Had we(life on earth) better resign ourselves to it because it has been decided that nuke is the only base-load way to go?
IIE
Report Comment
If it is not the same it must be different…
So henceforth we(those of us who use an ectosomatic means of storing and passing on information) will refrain from comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl.
Agreed Economist
Report Comment
"evolutionary challenge"… a pleasant-sounding synonym for EXTINCTION.
Report Comment
could also be the amount of radio-nucleotides, if not composition.
Report Comment
That's what I was thinking. It's just volumetrically that much more substantial.
Report Comment
I would support that it is composition and quantity. Chernobyl was an active reactor running fuel mostly enriched. However, Fukushimas had spent fuel involved which is a cocktail of radionuclides of which uranium and plutonium are amongst the least toxic.
Report Comment
Oh, good. A topic suitable to update the bird deaths here in Southeast New Mexico. There have been no more dead doves (these I mentioned here earlier, because they are on the ground and look as if thy are asleep). At the peak, there were 1 to 4 a day. However, there are almost no doves flying around anymore either. This started in mid-December.
One of the cottontail bunnies that live in the cattleguard pipes just had a litter. I am checking several times a day to see if the babies have ears or not.
Report Comment
There are FAR LESS songbirds here than last year. The ravens and starlings seem to be flourishing, however. Still seeing large numbers of gulls, terns, geese, and such, but it's hard to see if the absolute numbers have changed. Definitely a LOT LESS songbirds and about 1/3 as many doves here as last year. Every time I go for a walk in an area where there are gull-like birds, I find the remains of the wings of many birds. Hard to say if it's bird flu, some other disease, or radiation affecting the birds. But something is definitely going on!
Report Comment
This may help with your research. Bird flu is not a disease of the wild bird population. The main causes of this disease are stress and proximity, just like human flu. It is rife in battery hens, the web is full of the statistics and cases by year and geographic location. You will also find that there are Ph.D. theses which reveal the steps taken by Industries in general and without any scientific proof, to cover culpability of all kinds by misdirecting attention onto wild bird/animal populations viz.,. badgers and TB – a soft target.
Report Comment
"The birds at Fukushima are only beginning to face the evolutionary challenge of living in a radioactive world."
Humans are facing the same challenge, and imo, we're losing. Just look at the cancer rates.
Report Comment
I believe we're in an evolutionary cul-de-sac.
Report Comment
"I believe we're in an evolutionary cul-de-sac."–The BEST of Alice!
Report Comment
I love the way they describe it as population reduction, as if it is a good thing, rather than deaths or murders.
Report Comment
RE: Economist report …. dangerous, and not to mention the Fullerenes.
Report Comment
Speechless …Bird study.
Report Comment
We always see numbers comparing how much overall radiation (say in Bequerels) OR how much iodine and cesium Chernobyl released vs. what Fukushima released. But are there any numbers specifically comparing how much plutonium and/or uranium Cherno released vs. that released by Fuku? Such a comparison might be informative.
Report Comment
The guy who wrote this article is CRAZY !!!
"Japan Meltdown Moves From Reactors to Rice Bowls: Paul Blustein"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/japan-meltdown-moves-from-reactors-to-rice-commentary-by-paul-blustein.html
Report Comment
Wow. Contrast that article with this article.
It's like night and day.
http://www.truth-out.org/frontlines-fukushima-meltdown-perpetuates-industry-lie-tsunami-not-quake-started-nuclear-crisis/1330
Report Comment
I have left critical comments on a couple Truthout reports for minimizing the risks in previous articles. Finally they clearly state the risks in this article.
"While mention is made of the 100,000 displaced by the 12-mile Fukushima exclusion zone, nothing is said about the broader health implications for the entre country–and indeed for the rest of the world as radioactive isotopes from Fukushima spread well beyond Japan’s borders."
"Alas, though Frontline tells of the massive amounts of seawater pumped into the damaged facility, nothing much is said about the contaminated water that is leaving the area, spreading into groundwater, rivers and the Pacific Ocean. The show talks of the efforts to open a valve to relieve pressure inside one reactor, but does not address growing evidence that the lid of the containment vessel likely lifted off at some point between the tsunami and the explosion in building one. And there is a short discussion of bringing the now-melted-down reactors to “cold shutdown,” but there is no mention of the recent “re-criticality“–the rising temperatures inside one of the damaged cores."
Report Comment
Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but why can't they recycle the already contaminated water at Fukushima for cooling, and recycle whatever is not going into the sea or the ground, instead of filling up never ending quantities of these liquid waste containers and running out of place to put them?
Report Comment
Just guessing, but
I think those liquid waste containers are just window dressing.
Not an ignorant question, but just to school ya,
All those containers? Just there to fool ya.
Without "cold shutdown" or "reactor containment"
contaminated water goes right down the drainment.
Tip O' the Hat to or-well for inspiration!
Report Comment
Hey Doctor, maybe it's because the fallout at Fukushima is ongoing?
When you start to grow wings, call me and I'll get your bio on the evolution page in the Guinness Book of World records.
Report Comment
hard to believe they push this stuff but since the start of this world disaster I've become dulled to the extent of the cover up.
now the new yorker is at it
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2012/03/the-media-did-not-hype-fukushima.html
phewww they say – the pbs documentary says we dodged a potential world disaster
Report Comment
"THE disaster last year at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant…" – long ago and far away for Economist readers.
How about "the ongoing disaster that began almost a year ago has so far caused…."
Report Comment
MAY ??? MAY be more dangerous ??? DUH, because much more and longer lasting contamination ??? People NOT BEING WARNED !!!
God my eyes are going to get stuck up there as mom used to say !, What if your eyes get stuck like that ?
: |
Report Comment
Oh Dear,…did 'we' have the same Mother Doc? My Mum used to always say that to me,…especially when I'd cross my eyes. (Her's were crossed at birth and had to have surgery).
Report Comment
Holy Shit! We're triplets!
But, Mom always loved you two the most.
Report Comment
StillJill,
No not same mom, but I am sure we went to different schools together !
: )
Report Comment