Mythbusters to Test Cockroach Radiation Myth 573
redwoodtree writes "An article on the site for the Tri-City Herald sums it up perfectly: 'Contrary to popular belief, not a significant amount of research goes into cockroach radiation.' To test the old saw about 'the cockroaches being the only survivors of a nuclear war' Discovery Channel's Mythbusters are going out to Hanford Site, where plutonium was manufactured for the first nuclear bomb. It's the single most polluted nuclear waste site in the U.S. The Mythbusters are going to take cockroaches and other insects and apply successively higher doses of radiation in a controlled setting."
Safety? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Call Homeland Security on these terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 (Score:1, Insightful)
Wait, PETA speaks for all liberals? Thanks for the information. Now we can really beat that strawman down!
Safety isn't the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
In a former life, I worked as an NDT technician. One of our biggest jobs was industrial radiography. Which, long story short, involves radioisotope cameras and lots of safety training. With an radiation safety expert, radiation alarms, survey meters, and proper equipment they'll be plenty safe.
The biggest problem for them would be to properly dose the cockroaches. What kinds and levels of radiation will they be receiving? Any clown can x-ray a roach until it dies, but what would the fallout profile of a world-ending nuclear war look like? What's the long-term effect of radioisotopes in their bodies? How much ionizing radiation will they receive?
There's alpha, beta, gamma, neutron... What kind of radiation are they going to use? Safety, while incredibly important for an experiment like this, is relatively easy to accomplish if they get an expert. Attacking the correct problem may prove far more troublesome.
Number of Roaches? (Score:4, Insightful)
This bothers me (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure it's just insects who i would happily squash if they crawled on me. But it feels evil to kill things for a TV show.
Deadly virus? (Score:5, Insightful)
These kinds of "dilemma's" are nothing but intellectual masturbation. I'll tell you right now: in a real world situation, that man or that dog would be a greasy spot if it was only thought that their death would save 100,000 people.
And as for the reverse, you can bet, in a quarantine situation, they would kill as many as it took (or as they could) to keep the sick separated from the well. It's the only thing that can be done in that situation, 1, 100, or 1,000,000. The reverse also holds: if you were stuck in a quarantine, and you believed yourself or your family to be in danger of being infected, you'd do whatever you could to break quarantine, even at the risk of infecting countless others...That's why they defend barricades with guns, not pamphlets on disease control.
The desire to protect yourself and your loved ones trumps it all, when it comes down to it. That's just human nature.
Re:Safety isn't the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mythbusters uses their science terminology properly, is open to peer review, and doesn't try to trick anyone. They even go so far as retesting things if their viewers find holes in their methodologies. It may not be formal, academic science, but it IS real science.
Re:This bothers me (Score:3, Insightful)
So every time they fumigate a TV studio, it's wrong? But it's okay to take a magnifying glass to the ants in your yard, because you feel like it?
You're way too sensitive.
Re:wont someone think of the Cockroaches! (Score:5, Insightful)
To all of those whining "oh, how can they just kill those living things???". Put down your fucking hamburger, take off your leather shoes, and head off into the woods. Go take up your own cause and live naked in a cave you overzealous assholes.
Hmph. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who are you saving? What are you actually doing? You're just torturing some slob for dated information that's not going to help anyone. And torture is a crappy way of getting accurate information anyhow...Witness all the people who "confessed" to witchcraft during the inquisition, and the witch trials.
Traditional intelligence gathering methods were sufficient to get the information that would have stopped 9/11, if the methods of analysis were good enough. Now, they're gathering so much more information, and I've seen no proof that their methods of analysis have improved by anything even resembling a similar amount...Basically, they're drowning themselves in un-analyzed crap information, while giving concrete examples to the people who think that we're corrupt torturers, that we are in fact, corrupt torturers, and screwing the people at home who're finding it hard to think we really are the good guys when we're torturing POWs, and yes, if we're "at war" with terror, then people we capture in the war, are POWs...That's what it means.
In short, it's stupid, it's pointless, and it's immoral. We may be forgiven for taking the moral low road for an end like saving a million people, but when you take the moral low road for a worthless end, you should expect to be strung up by your nuts for it. Make no mistake; you sacrifice a human life because of something you think is right, that's still murder...If enough other people think you were right to do so, society may forgive you. Otherwise, they may put your ass in the electric chair.
Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? (Score:1, Insightful)
Ha. (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't been in that situation, so I'm not quite sure what I'd do. It'll depend on a lot of things. How long do I stay in quarantine if there is no food? How long if no water? No vague attempt at medical aid from the outside? No idea.
But you apparently know...Unlike all the "trample your fellow man" sheep of the world, you'd never act in anything but a selfless manner.
Or you're talking out of your ass. I've seen a lot of people talk a big line, and the bigger the line, the faster they crack when the shit hits the fan.
Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? (Score:4, Insightful)
They start with a vague hypothesis and little facts and state a shaky hypothesis.
Well, this satisfies a myth then. If what they started with had facts or a sold hypothesis, it wouldn't be (presumed to be) a myth. I haven't seen them test if a feather and a rock will fall at the same speed in a vacuum. My take on it is their whole point is to take on anything with a lot of hearsay and not so much fact.
I don't know how they work behind the scenes, but my guess and hope would be they do a ton of stuff that never airs because it becomes too obvious and/or not fun to watch. That IS their prerogative. They say "plausible" or "busted", but they only mean in terms of their data point(s).
Their methodology may not be perfectly sound, but they never claimed to be any final source of information. To me, they try desperately to look like technologically inclined rednecks. They even grew an extra beard on the show just for that purpose. To take them for anything more
"All data collected in this show is just added to the total data collected by anyone anywhere and does not represent any sort of total coverage of any particular topic in specifics or generalities. You'd be a cheese brained fool to take what this show presents to be the truth outside of its own scope and you'd deserve a federally regulated flogging if you apply the data presented to other real world situations. If in any event you use anything you saw on this show to save your life, Darwin will smite you from the Earth with a great vengeance."
BRB.. more beer...
Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if you think morality is derived from christian values (as you define them--every christian has a different definition), then it is obvious that you have never studied even the tiniest little bit of philosophy. Put bluntly, you are too ignorant to even begin the discussion of what morality is, and what causes it. I suggest you start reading up on the topic of altruism in animals, evolutionary psychology, and moral philosophy in general. Until you educate yourself, you will continue displaying the unfortunate consequences of your extreme ignorance: bigotry, hate, and anti-social evil.
I hope, for your sake, you can learn and grow at some point in your life.
Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? (Score:4, Insightful)
I assume if they don't mention a documented case then they couldn't find one. Eg for cell phone at gas station:
http://www.automedia.com/Protecting_Yourself_While_at_the_Pump/dsm20040101sp/3 [automedia.com]
For buried alive, they admit in some experiments they have to compromise if it means a high chance they will be killed. They do their best to work around it.
For the black powder engine, as well as the other ancient recreations, it's far simpler than a modern combustion engine. Even there I am impressed how they can take a seized up old car or cement lorry and coax the internal combustion engine back to life within such a short time. Before they destroy it.
You can nit pick a couple of individual experiments out of the hundreds they have done... do it in their forums and they will do another episode for you to prove they can eliminate any holes you can find.
It is a TV show. And it IS science.
Phillip.