Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Nuked Coral Reef Bounces Back 332

sm62704 writes "I found this New Scientist article interesting, as I was actually alive (albeit very small) when Bikini Atoll was H-bombed. The article says that the reason the reefs are now flourishing is because they are mostly undisturbed by humans, who are afraid of the radiation. Background levels there are now 'similar to that at any Australian city,' while nearby islands haven't been so lucky.'When I put the Geiger counter near a coconut, which accumulates radioactive material from the soil, it went berserk,' says Maria Beger of the University of Queensland in Australia."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nuked Coral Reef Bounces Back

Comments Filter:
  • by Coolhand2120 ( 1001761 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @02:52AM (#23101030)
    Maybe we should nuke all the worlds hypoxic dead zones! That would certainly remove the waste accumulated there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) [wikipedia.org]
  • by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Thursday April 17, 2008 @02:52AM (#23101032) Homepage
    Were there lots/little/none ? Oh, come on - that would be one of the most interesting things to tell us. We are all so worried about ''nuclear power fading your genes'' - we now have a 60 year experiment that could tell us about long term effects but they are silent.
  • Really? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by bazald ( 886779 ) <bazald@z[ ]pex.com ['eni' in gap]> on Thursday April 17, 2008 @03:10AM (#23101114) Homepage
    "occasional forays of illegal shark, tuna and Napoleon Wrasse fishing"

    Couldn't the criminals find a less radioactive region to illegally fish? Who wants to eat radioactive fish anyway? I know the article says that "ambient radiation is low", but I doubt the fish would be rated A-grade.
  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@noSpAM.gmail.com> on Thursday April 17, 2008 @03:13AM (#23101132) Journal
    For those of you who are anthropologists as well as zoologists, it should be mentioned that there were native inhabitants of these islands that were forced to move before the tests.

    We did it to Native Americans on the continental United States as well but it really bears mentioning that there was a pretty gross injustice paid to these peaceful peoples in the name of atomic testing. I remember watching this footage on an ABC special as a kid and I luckily recorded it so I could watch it over and over again. When watching project Baker, I kept thinking "Wow, that's impressive, that was somebody's home."

    I suppose I'll be called a self-hating liberal but I believe we should never forget the price we pay for the weapons we hold. These weapons that were supposed to be the end of war aren't and any future horror developed to stop war won't be the end to war either.

    Just imagine what the look on your face would be if someone showed up and told you to evacuate your state because it was now going to be used for nuclear testing. You probably wouldn't be very happy to leave your home in the name of warfare.
  • You joke, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 17, 2008 @03:15AM (#23101138)
    I was rather stunned when, planning my trip to AU a few years ago, I realized that ONE nuclear sub could take out the whole country!
    Or at least send it to Mad Max-land.

    Physically AU is huge. Roughly the size of the US. Superimposing a map of one on the other gives fairly accurate driving times and distance calculations.
    Demographically it is very very small.

    I also figured out the real problem is water. While the US, EU, and CN have large navigable rivers running deep into their continents, AU has nothing to bring water to the center of the country (or more accurately there isn't enough rain in the center to drain and form navigable rivers).
    AU could be a super-power if it had enough water to support a population of 300 million. Instead it is so dry they are lucky to have 1/10 of that at about 22 million.
  • That is an interesting idea, to see the genetic divergence that radiation may have caused. You call always look at Chernobyl though for a glimpse as to what radiation has done to the wildlife there. As far as I know, it hasn't affected it all that much. There is a higher incidence of fatal mutation, but over all what I have read is that it hasn't had a huge impact. Another site that you could look at is Rocky Flats in Colorado. While us humans that contaminated the hell out of the place are trying to figure out how to warn future generations into the thousands of years about what we did there, the wildlife has reclaimed it as their own. It's a wildlife refuge now and as far as anyone can tell there hasn't been that much impact on the animals there. The problem is though that we're only seeing the first few generations of life since these places have been contaminated. We don't know if it will build up over time and cause radical genetic diversion or if life will adapt to it, it could take a very long time to see the effects of what we have done. Oh, and if you're curious about some of the other things that we have done check out a book called The World Without Us, fascinating read.
  • Radiation and life (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Knutsi ( 959723 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @03:38AM (#23101252)

    I once heard something fascinating. After the Chernobyk accident, the radioactive cloud that contaminated (mainly) the north of Norway caused allot of fear in people, and for people's health. The gouvernment continued to slaughter and burn massive amounts of raindeer and livestock.

    A friend later told me that the meat was actually fully usable, and that it's destruction may have been unnecessary. She suggested we should have fed it to the elderly population, which did not have time to develop cancer from the meat anyhow.

    There will be allot of talk in this discussion about the fear of radiation, and that is why this discussion is so good. Life does well with increased radiation! Humans don't however, by virtue of the way we look at human society and human worth. What it does say however, is that fear of nuclear energy, a power source that may have dramatically less consequence for life on this planet than most other energy sources, prevents us from progressing in the energy debate! (and maybe also in space exploration, given worries of launching nuclear-powered space craft)

    Check this news item [nationalgeographic.com] for a similar case to the coral reef in the article.

    "People in the first world have convinced themselves that chemicals and radiation stand in the way of their personal immortality"
    - James Lovelock

  • by quibbler ( 175041 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @03:42AM (#23101284)

    Even without husk-gripping, coconuts move... they're supposed to, thats how they get from island to island...

    I think this is a note to self: do NOT eat coconuts that you find on the seashore. I wonder if anyone's realized that little issue...

  • Re:vacation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Knutsi ( 959723 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @03:45AM (#23101302)
    Would be interesting to look at how long expected development time for the cancers you could get from these coconuts would be. Maybe for people over 65-70, the food is perfectly safe to eat! (:
  • Re:Nuke em all (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pipatron ( 966506 ) <pipatron@gmail.com> on Thursday April 17, 2008 @04:12AM (#23101406) Homepage

    That has actually been a "jokingly serious" suggestion. Increasing the background radiation in an area so humans don't dare to use it or any products from that area. Works great with Chernobyl for example, the forest around the area has a lot more animal life now than before the incident.

  • That may happen (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @04:38AM (#23101498) Journal
    Coconuts tend to be blown off of trees during storms. Then they float a LONG distance. Somebody COULD pick one up and eat it. I am surprised that the feds has not decided to use plant remediation to pull the radiation off the island. All they need to do is harvest the grass and even trees every so often. Of course, if it still has high radiation, put a number of animals back there. This is the time to see how humans will do in space.
  • by tezbobobo ( 879983 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @04:59AM (#23101594) Homepage Journal
    One interesting mutation or effect of natural selection would probably flora and fauna with a naturally higher resistance to radiation. At least by slowly killing ourselves we are making sure other species survive.

    Terence Boylen - Yeah!
  • Well, yes and no (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @05:05AM (#23101614) Journal
    These weapons that were supposed to be the end of war aren't and any future horror developed to stop war won't be the end to war either. First, we developed the weapons and these kept USSR and America from going to war. The simple fact is, that both side were terrified of using these. We all knew what would happen. So, it really did accomplish what we wanted. And later, other nations aquired the knowledge. Some by their own work, and others by stealing it. The ones who developed it on their own had an advanced enough form of gov. that they are not real threats to those around them. Of course, until recently, Israel was probably the only one who had any real chance of using theirs.

    The real problem is the recent round of nuclear build-out. These countries do not have the maturity to handle these. Basically, Turkey and Pakistan. This can be blamed soley on a number of top pubs who sold our nuke secrets for a few gold coins (relatively speaking). [justacitizen.org] People like RichardPerle, douglas feith, EricEdelman, and Marc Grossman. These guys, and others, sold it to Turkey and Pakistan. This action really could start a war. Pakistan supposedly passed on their knowledge to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc. Hopefully the next president will go after these guys for the treason that they committed.

    In the end, I suspect that it will not matter. There are so many other easy ways to attack other ppl. Groups like Al Qaeda could easily mutate the avian flu and then spread it quickly in the west (and all for less than a dozen of their ppl; thank god that they are religious; the mullahs do not want to kill the innocent). Plenty of ways for us to kill each other.

    And if could stop a world war, yeah, I would allow the feds to move me to another place, pay for a new home, and provide me with a nice new job, schooling for my children, etc, which IIRC, is what we did.
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @05:18AM (#23101672) Journal
    All of life has the same problem. That is the radiation induces faster changes in all. Some on birth defects. The vast majority are simply miscarried (most ppl never realize that many women suffer at least 1 miscarriage and it is due to a fatal defect). But of course, some make it to the world. The recent Indian girl who was born with a duplicated face (probably the best place that she could be born was in northern India; there she is a goddess; elsewhere she would be considered a freak) was possibly induced via radiation or pollution. For the living, it means loads of cancer. No doubt that animal life in any of these radioactive areas are suffering shortened lives due to such. In fact, I am amazed that we (USA and Russia) are not tagging these animals to see how long and what they look like at end of life. These are all living labs. Heck, I am more amazed that Hollywood has not made some interesting movies based on just these areas.
  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@noSpAM.gmail.com> on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:15AM (#23101872) Journal

    First, we developed the weapons and these kept USSR and America from going to war. The simple fact is, that both side were terrified of using these. We all knew what would happen. So, it really did accomplish what we wanted.
    You're not really trying to argue that both sides understood we would never ever use the nuclear weapons we had worked so hard to build, are you? Both sides of the coin are madness, as you'd never spend so much money creating these weapons never to use them. I once read a book by Robert Strange McNamara (see also Fog of War) that talked numbers. The numbers he talked about were how many nuclear weapons we built during the cold war and also how much each of these weapons cost. MIRV technology, kill areas, megatonnage, etc. That's what we bought at any cost on taxpayer money. Meanwhile people in the United States still starved. Children around the world over died.

    All these countries that you speak of would put their entire population (and some have) into disgusting poverty in order to get their hands on nuclear weapons.

    The real problem is the recent round of nuclear build-out.
    I don't get it, how do other countries getting the bomb change your logic any further? I mean, the U.S. was religious enough an the U.S.S.R. was so anti-religion it was worse than being religious. You say these countries could really start a war because they lack maturity ... could you please explain how the U.S. or Russia are any more mature than they are? Are you talking technologically mature because that has little to do with how you use nuclear weapons. Or is maturity just the safe way to say we hate them? I'm surprised you weren't calling China immature.

    In the end, I suspect that it will not matter. There are so many other easy ways to attack other ppl. Groups like Al Qaeda could easily mutate the avian flu ...
    If that's so easy, why don't you tell me how that's done (and why haven't they done it in the past five years). Not even Al Qaeda is as immature as you think they are. Bin Laden has talked number counts of how many Americans he wants dead ... they are not out to create a mass epidemic that would almost certainly spread the world over like Stephen King's The Stand.

    Biological warfare would just be the new horror, we'd get strains of all our favorite diseases and so would Russia, China, all the countries you listed. There'd still be conventional war, we'd still dump half our resources into developing these strains and everyone everywhere would still be thinking that it's a good thing we'll never use them. Until the day we do.

    This is an endless cycle, we're doomed to repeat this forever. If you want to get a Large Hadron Collider operating in the United States, convince congress it can create black holes that would easily be used as weapons against anyone.

    And if could stop a world war, yeah, I would allow the feds to move me to another place, pay for a new home, and provide me with a nice new job, schooling for my children, etc, which IIRC, is what we did.
    Money solves everything, does it? I would wager some of these people (as the same special interviewed the older ones) didn't really care about that.
  • SIGH (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:10AM (#23102106) Journal
    Far too many do not think logically today. I just wonder if this is a reflection of public schools or having had too many neo-cons in office.
    Did we want to use nukes? Well, to the point of testing them. And we did. We did all sorts of tests. But other then first use of these, we never used on ppl again. Just because we have these weapons does not mean that we will use them. We have sarin and VX in our arsenal (as do a number of western countries). We also have a number of biologicals that have been weaponized. And of course, we have our nukes. All of these same items are possessed by Russia, China, and a number of western countries. Can we use ever these? ABout the only way is if we are in a world war again. No other time would we use such horrors. In fact, just about any country that uses these will be ostracized unless they were attack by such first. Have you ever taken any of the martial arts, learned to shoot a gun, or archery? If you know these things, do you really feel the need to use these against others? Nope. You just want to be prepared.

    Maturity in a gov. is the ability to recognize that some of your actions are NOT in your citizen's best interest and then acting that way. Many leaders act in their own personal interest and that is considered immature. In a mature gov, their will be enough safe guards to prevent 1 or several ppl from being able to carry out such policies. That is the idea of congress, which is to reign in control on the president (or that is what they are suppose to do). Nearly all democracies/republics operate in such fashion. But even totalitarian states such as china can do so. China is controlled by a relatively small group of ppl, but they have controls on each other. Would I call them mature? Well, lets just say that I would not call them immature. They are in a massive build up of their military (esp on nukes and ICBMs), but I think that overall they will handle themselves well. Is maturity about hating somebody? Nope. USSR was mature. They actually had controls in place. OTH, what kind of controls does Musharraf have? Relatively little (hence relatively immature), though he would have to explain himself. Likewise, if North Korea's Kim Jong-il acquires this and decides to use this, will he have controls placed on him? NONE.

    As I mentioned in my first post, AQ has controls in place by their view of religion. That control has stopped them from taking the next step. So, you want me to tell you how to weaponize Avian Flu? The funny thing is that I have thought about writting a book about this (as in a drama ). Here is the recipe.
    1. Send about 6 of your ppl to indonosia where it is still spreading slowly. Have them work the smaller chicken farms. At some point, 1 or more will become sick. Bring them back to pakistan. Immeadiately. And get their blood. IOW, you are trying to obtain a sample.
    2. At that time, take about a dozen or so of your patriots that want to see their 72 virgins and subject them to regular flu (in particular, one that is NOT in the western yearly line-up; easy to find). IOW, you get these ppl sick with regular flu.
    3. Then inject them with small samples from the infected avian flu person. Remember the idea is to get these to exchange DNA material. The only way that happens is in a host who has both viruses.
    4. Then have others who will tend to these ppl. No kissing. Little touching. Just air flow. The same couple of ppl per incubator. If any of them get sick, then pull their blood and watch carefully. If they die, it is avian flu that has become airborne. And with enough human incubators, it will happen.
    5. send ppl to the west, once there, inject self and then walk around the place that you are at. Simply send out 1 person / major city and let them go to the airport, major indoor sporting events, malls, etc. By the time that somebody figures it out, 10 % of population would be infected. And zero time to do a vaccine.

    Now, before you get your panty's all in a bunch and rant and scream that I have just told

  • Re:Bikini (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:49AM (#23102300) Homepage
    I thought it was common knowledge. If you limit your education to what is taught in the classroom, you will never be a well-educated person. The detonation of the Mike device was an important point in the cold war and the arms race between the USA and USSR. The "invention" of the bikini was a notable point in the cultural history of the West during the 1950s.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Mike [wikipedia.org]

  • Correction (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:57AM (#23102360) Homepage
    The test at Bikini was Castle Bravo, the first test of a "dry" thermonuclear device.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo [wikipedia.org]

  • Re:That may happen (Score:5, Interesting)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:34AM (#23102648) Journal
    Yurk. Who would eat a coconut that floated for days on the sea ?


    I would. Coconuts have evolved in such a way that their thick, outer hull keeps it afloat should it happen to fall into water. Coconuts can float for hundreds (thousands?) of miles to distant beaches without incident. The tough, inner object that we find in stores is kept completely dry during this time. The white insides and milk are perfectly safe to eat.

    Except for the radiation.

  • Re:vacation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:41AM (#23102740) Journal
    Maybe for people over 65-70, the food is perfectly safe to eat! (:

    Especially if they smoke cigarettes. Ever notice that whenever someone does of lung cancer, cigarettes are always to blame whether they smoke or not, even if they worked at the Hanford Nuclear Facility [wikipedia.org]?

    I can remember one winter when I was a kid and they had open air nuclear tests in Nevada. A couple of days later we had a thindersnowstorm, and they said the snow was radioactive and you shouldn't let your kids play in it. Of course we did.

    You young people only have terrorists to worry about, we had the USSR with thousands of atom bombs aimed at us.

    The world is a much safer place than it was when I was a kid.

    -mcgrew
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:59AM (#23102932)
    The effects of lower levels of radiation is not so terrible for short-lived creatures. When a human takes a low-level radiation dose, the consequences are of cancers that start to show up years afterwards. But for a coral polyp or a small fish with a life expectancy of just a few years - cancer is a non-problem, it won't happen until long after the animal would have died of natural causes anyway.

    There may be a small number of birth deformities - but again, these animals produce a bazillion offspring which have a low probability of survival anyway - the few unfortunate deformed ones are merely the first to get picked off by predators - so again, no big deal.

    The biggest issues are of biological concentration of radioactivity. So radioactive contaminants tend to accumulate in the creatures at the head of the food chain - but the absence of those higher predators helps in the reef recovery process.

    It's amazing how quickly nature rebounds when you get people out of the picture.
  • Re:You joke, but ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @09:22AM (#23103196)

    I also figured out the real problem is water. While the US, EU, and CN have large navigable rivers running deep into their continents, AU has nothing to bring water to the center of the country (or more accurately there isn't enough rain in the center to drain and form navigable rivers).
    AU could be a super-power if it had enough water to support a population of 300 million. Instead it is so dry they are lucky to have 1/10 of that at about 22 million.
    If only you had an imperial ecologist to help you with the terraforming... of course, I've got this crazy vision in my head of marsupial sandworms in the Outback and Steve Irwin enthusiastically trying to manhandle them.

    The crazy thing is that it isn't just ocean evaporation and the winds that help bring water to a territory, the vegetation has so much to do with it as well. It brings up ground water, breathes it into the air, and can create rain.

    There's a theory that says the Amazon Rain Forest is a human artifact.

    Terra preta ("dark soil" in Portuguese) refers to expanses of very dark, fertile anthropogenic soils found in the Amazon Basin. It owes its name to its very high charcoal content. It is also known as "Amazonian dark earth" or "Indian black earth". In Portuguese its full name is "Terra preta do índio" or "Terra preta de índio".

    Terra preta is characterized by the presence of low-temperature charcoal in high concentrations; of high quantities of pottery shards; of organic matter such as plant residues, animal faeces, fish and animal bones and other material; and of nutrients such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn).[1] It also shows high levels of microorganic activities and other specific characteristics within its particular ecosystem. It is less prone to leaching than surrounding soils. Terra preta zones are generally surrounded by terra comum, or "common soil"; these are infertile soils, mainly Acrisols,[1] but also Ferralsols, and Arenosols.[2]

    Terra preta soils are of pre-Colombian nature and were created by man between 7000[3] and 500 BP ("Before Present"). Thousands of years after its creation it is so well known by local farmers and caboclos in Brazil's Amazonian basin, that they seek it out for use and for sale as compost (see Pedology). Its depth can reach 2 metres (6 feet). It is reputedly known by the locals as self-regenerating at the rate of 1 centimetre per year.[4]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta [wikipedia.org]

    Just imagine what we could do if we turned our minds to the greater good instead of the quickest buck.
  • Re:vacation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MikeyTheK ( 873329 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @09:29AM (#23103328)
    Ha. Ha. Here's the deal on Bikini: 1) You can't live there. You can visit on a dive excursion. Everything is brought with you. There are bunks in the buildings, but that's all 2) The radiation is in the form of cesium, which is extremely water soluble. As a result, it is present above the waterline in the sand and soil (but not at the surface, as rainwater constantly washes it away). In addition, since cesium is SO soluble, all traces away from the shore are long gone. So it's safe to dive the wrecks, which are spectacular. 3) Previous attempts to get the cesium to bond to other elements, e.g. iodine, did not succeed as planned, and the vegetation continues to suck it up. 4) In 1946 there were around 150 residents that were relocated to Kili Island and to Ejit, so they'd like to get home some time, too. 5) If you ever get the chance, cough up the cash, learn how to dive, and GO. Most of the wrecks are deep, but the water in the lagoon is as clear as you are going to see, and the wrecks are pristine. I've done diving at a military-controlled atoll, where there is very little traffic, fewer tourists, and an active SCUBA community. It may be the best diving I have ever done.
  • by Vexar ( 664860 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @09:33AM (#23103368) Homepage Journal
    Mr. Williams, kindly rethink your statement about silence regarding 60 years of nuclear power. There is no "they." It is not that anyone is silent, it is that you are not reading what is out there.

    If anyone wants to know where the #1 source of airborne, man-made radiation is, they need go no further than a lump of coal. Nuclear power plants require employees to wear film strips, much like those we see in cameras. The strips change chemistry and appearance with radiation. Ask a nuke worker how their rad levels are. They know. Oh, and if such a worker ever gets a medical treatment involving radioactive material, be it a barium enema (whee!) or chemotherapy, they would set off all the safety sensors in the facility if they went onsite, and trigger an immediate shutdown (unless you're from Soviet Russia, and you disabled the safety features because you wanted to try an exciting experiment in Chernobyl, which didn't work 4 months ago, because those safety triggers shut you down, but this time, you turned them off!).

    Back to the lump of coal. The average coal plant, say 1000 MW, produces 5.2 tons of uranium (6% fissile), and 12.8 tons of thorium. Where does it go? Up into the atmosphere, as soot. Where does it come from? It is a rock. It comes from a dark hole in the ground, maybe W. Virginia. Nuclear power plants are closed systems. They don't combust materials and breathe oxygen. Every once in a while, the control rods need to be replaced, along with some pipes and such. The equivalent nuclear plant to said coal plant produces one standard shipping container full of rad "waste" per year. All reactors designed in N. America and many in Europe and Japan are planned with storage space for the rad waste, on-site.

    One thing we could do, is once every 10 years, fill up a small freighter with the rad waste containers of the world's reactors, ship it to the Bikini Atoll, and drop the load 30 feet offshore. The metal will corrode eventually, but before that it will be covered with coral.

    You know, I don't care a hoot about carbon dioxide, it has never done me much harm. Ozone is produced en masse by lightning strikes in the troposphere, and nobody can beat the mess made by a single, violent volcanic eruption. I do want to see the end of combustive power systems, because we don't need competition for oxygen. Living where I do, I can vouch for my corner of the planet and say it ain't getting any warmer. I do care about airborne radioactive particulates (aka soot) and rad waste. The coconut trees and oceanic coral have proven their value to society, I think we should reward them with a higher status in our world culture by making them the guardians of rad waste. If a lone coconut should travel thousands of leagues, well, shoot, it's not going to hurt anyone more than a barium enema. At least it isn't in the air.

    Why did I put the waste of rad waste in quotes, you wonder? Well, from where do you think the barium and iodine and whatever ungodly stuff is in chemotherapy comes? A hole in the ground? No, that waste serves medical purposes. The rest of it could be put into a different reactor design, in accordance with the reactor families planned out in the 40's and 50's, but nobody has spent the research dollars to go far with them.

    Final note: I heard a rumor that the prescription drug "Lunesta" contains a coconut extract. Is that why they have glowing butterflies in their ads?

  • by RoninOtter ( 1002003 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @09:47AM (#23103556)

    About 3 years ago there was a TV special on Bikini Atoll and how the wildlife there has exploded due to lack of all human intervention (read harvesting). All of the shipwrecks are now beautiful artificial reefs teeming with life of all kinds and on all levels of the food chain. (The shark population alone is staggering)

    The background radiation levels underwater are zero, so the entire area is now open for private SCUBA charters, with dive packages including boat dives on many of the largest ships sunk there. (The Saratoga, The Nagato, etc)

    As for the coconuts, that's true of any radioactively contaminated area. Living things absorb radioactive material. Especially plants. Plant life and soil are the most radioactive things surrounding Chernobyl. (Unless you're inside the sarcophagus staring at the "elephant's foot" http://youtube.com/watch?v=u5EAS5PT7Q8 [youtube.com])

    This begs the question: Could you seed a contaminated area with plants which are good at absorbing radioactive isotopes and harvest/dispose of them to clean up an area? Could we clean Bikini over time by going through several years of coconut harvesting?

  • by Knutsi ( 959723 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @09:55AM (#23103672)

    According to this: http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_176865.svd [www.svd.se] (content in Swedish) 849 persons in Sweden developed cancer as a direct result of the Chernobyl accident according to a joint effort by two (Ã-rebro and LinkÃping) universities. The SRPA were sceptical on the result since they had predicted about 300 cases.

    That is very interesting (: 849 of a total of 22 400 people with cancer, in a study of 1,14 million people. One question is if these people would develop cancer anyway, just a different type and a bit later. One other interesting thing to look at is not just how many cases of cancer develops, but how much it cuts of the life expectancy/quality of the people who get it, and in the population at large.

    I once read that the number of people who died from Chernobyl is 47. That where those who died fighting the fire, and from direct exposure to massive radiation. Loads more have their life-spans shortened, but in the entire population affected, the impact was very small, and that compared to the energy produced, the danger to peoples lives from nuclear is tiny compared to effects from other common energy sources.

  • Re:Bikini (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 17, 2008 @10:36AM (#23104438)
    I had forgotten that song. Thanks for reminding me of it; good tune. Also, I would assume that knowledge of the history the term bikini would be more prevalent among people who lived through the cold war in the USA than others.
  • by jafac ( 1449 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @01:35PM (#23107628) Homepage
    Life may (or may not) actually thrive in radioactive environments.

    That's actually a red-herring in the argument against nuclear power and NIMBY-ism. The real worry isn't about real health effects. It's financial.

    The real argument is;
    "If your plant explodes, because you spent money on CEO bonuses instead of safety inspections, even if your radioactive cloud does not meaningfully impact my health and safety, the measurable radiation in the soil of my back yard will destroy the value of my property in the open real estate market, while your endowed CEO floats gently down to an easy retirement on his golden parachute."

    This is a REAL and measurable negative impact from nuclear power, and no amount of "radiation is good for you" PR-spin is going to change it. Nobody wants their nest-egg destroyed. Nobody wants their hometown community erased.

    Even increased regulation and vigilance is not going to impact this effect that nuclear power plants have on residential real estate markets.
  • Re:You joke, but ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dcam ( 615646 ) <david AT uberconcept DOT com> on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:32PM (#23112704) Homepage
    I also figured out the real problem is water. While the US, EU, and CN have large navigable rivers running deep into their continents, AU has nothing to bring water to the center of the country (or more accurately there isn't enough rain in the center to drain and form navigable rivers).

    That is part of the problem. Another problem is that Australia is extremely nutrient poor. Being in the middle of a continental plate, with few volcaones (none active), means that little new material comes to the surface.
  • Re:You joke, but ... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DJDuck ( 1172519 ) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @10:23PM (#23113396)
    Its more than rainfall thats needed. Its a landscape problem Australia has. Since the coming of man we have destroyed the landscape (this includes aboriginals).

    Australia did have big wide rivers, it's just that by the time humans got here, they were so wide they are referred to as flood plains.

    The buring by aboriginals and the wholesale clearing by white settlers has caused the water channels we now call creeks and rivers, but these are not a natural part of the landscape. Read some of the notes by the early explorers. They describe large parts of inner Australia that is now desert or close too, as swamp land.

    Peter Andrew's book Back from the Brink, is a great background on the situation along with his suggestions to fix the problem. He not scientist, just a farmer, but he makes so much sense that a number CSIRO scientists are backing his observations.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...