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."
vacation (Score:3, Funny)
Re:vacation (Score:5, Interesting)
That may happen (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That may happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe the people where the coconut washes ashore have a life-expectancy lower than that of the west, and the increased cancer risk that comes with eating it is minor, and irrelevant. Cancer largely develops late in life, and is of more concern to populations living as long as we in the first world than most other places around the globe.
Even if you killed of all the coconuts, the cost of the operation could be high. Maybe, in terms of people's life quality, the money would be wiser invested covering other issues of health in the region, giving more people higher quality of life, rather than lengthening the life expectancy of a few unlucky individuals by a matter of days on average.
Re:That may happen (Score:5, Informative)
This. One of the fun things back in HS was to take the radiation detector to various common items. Heck, Brazil Nuts, Lima Beans, and Bananas are radioactive. So aren't carrots and potatoes. Potassium, an essential nutrient is radioactive.
An extra dose of radiation doesn't mean that somebody is going to die from cancer. It all depends on the dose.
rather than lengthening the life expectancy of a few unlucky individuals by a matter of days on average.
Unless the individual is making said radioactive coconuts a staple of their diet; I'd say minutes is more likely.
Re:That may happen (Score:5, Funny)
Note to self:
Don't visit an Australian city.
Swallows could make it worse (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That may happen (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That may happen (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Typically Los Angeles, though they are widely distributed amongst other communities as well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I try to get this point across to people all the time and they think I'm either crazy or naive. In all sorts of ways, the world is better now than in the past. Sure, not everything is, but the majority of items that impact individuals is immensely better. Health, Crime, War... all much better. Terrorism is petty compared to cold war nuclear brinkmanship.
Re:vacation (Score:4, Informative)
Some 43,443 people were killed on the highways in 2005 [usatoday.com].
Meanwhile, 559,312 people who died from cancer. [avert.org] Cancer is only the second biggest killer, heart disease kills more people of ALL races. More black people die of cancer than all races combined die of AIDS.
HIV is comparitively a very minor threat, even to minorities, compared to other dangers. If you're talking about dangers to minorities you should be talking about incarceration, as a disproportionate number of our prisoners (more per capita than any other country) are minorities.
Re:vacation (Score:5, Interesting)
It's cool (Score:5, Funny)
It was silly though, back when US sentiment was so against Bikini Atoll, that everyone decided to change the name "Bikini" to "Freedom suit."
Re:Bikini (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Mike [wikipedia.org]
Correction (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was in my high school US history book.
Re:vacation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:vacation (Score:5, Funny)
A Giger counter presumably counts paintings.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Reality TV? (Score:5, Insightful)
"oh, and by the way, anything you eat is likely radioactive"
Maybe make the first episode with reality TV execs on the island....
Queue Gilligan's Island jokes too.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can always add some more lawyers and politicians to make things more interesting.
Just drop them off with parachutes, give them one and only instruction ("Survive"), sit back and enjoy the mayh^Hshow;)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice... (Score:2)
Nuke the hypoxic dead zones! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) [wikipedia.org]
Radiation induced changes to coconuts (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Studying the effects of high background radiation on coconuts is hardly going provide much insight into the effects on, say, human brains.
... at least not in my case ...
Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts (Score:4, Interesting)
Terence Boylen - Yeah!
Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most mutants will simply die before being born or shortly thereafter. The genes of the few mutants that make it to th adult states tend to be recessive as well and quite likely to just get "neutralized" by selection, genetic drift et al.
All these b
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst humans can't go anywhere near it, or the town of Pripyat, many species of plant and animals have flourished in the 30-odd years since the infamous meltdown. These species display no visible deformations, and continue to breed and live undisturbed by humans.
Almost as if they had just... evolved to cope with the massive doses of radiation they cop every day.
Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts (Score:5, Informative)
Well, to be fair, I'll mention that one study involving birds found that the chicks of birds nesting in the sarcophagus had double the expected deformity rate over birds nesting outside of Chernobyl.
Given that a number of the bird species are the ones where the chicks gradually push out the others such that only one survives out of a laying of 2-6 eggs, the effect of the extra deformities was essentially noise, statistically insignificant to the species.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Look up what's going on around Chernobyl at the moment.
Whilst humans can't go anywhere near it, or the town of Pripyat, many species of plant and animals have flourished in the 30-odd years since the infamous meltdown. These species display no visible deformations, and continue to breed and live undisturbed by humans.
The thing they're still not sure on is how much of the wildlife is actually reproducing in the area and how much is infill from surrounding territories. They've yet to see the birds with speckled albino feathers make it back from a migration.
While I think that the recovery of Chernobyl is astounding and certainly flies in the face of what everyone expected, I don't know if the bounceback after a global nuclear war would be quite so quick.
Of course, the thing that people tend to overlook is that the planet
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "environmental skeptics," but my concern is that we will take most existing species down with us. We already are eliminating habitat and species (or animal stocks) at an alarming rate for short term gains. It would be great if we treated our role on this planet as stewardship. Instead we continue to be short-term binge users. And yes, given time, I do believe the earth's ecosystem can recover.
Environmental skeptics = Rush Limbaugh, George W, and the usual gang of idiots. Remember them saying trees produce more CO than factories, that volcanoes release more pollution than the rest of human activity? They seem to have the notion that the Earth is an awful big place and it just seems so unlikely that little old us could have anything to do with changing it one way or another. They also fail to grasp that the Earth does not have to be destroyed outright to make it uninhabitable for us, subtle chang
Tautology of survival (Score:4, Insightful)
The tricky thing about evolution is, only the survivors survive it.
Naturally, some sub-population will survive and, lacking competition, thrive. Most humans, though, would consider it unacceptable to eliminate, say, the 50% of a population that is most susceptible to radiation (or heart disease, or any other condition) even if the surviving population was stronger and better adapted as a result.
Re:Radiation induced changes to coconuts (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
obvious next step (Score:5, Funny)
Re:obvious next step (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:obvious next step (Score:4, Funny)
You joke, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You joke, but ... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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 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]
Just imagine what we could do if we turned our minds to the greater good instead of the quickest buck.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:4, Informative)
You can irrigate, but you also need rainfall once in a while (or you need really cheap energy and good desalination and demineralization such that you're not just watering plants, but spraying the soil slowly and without saturating the soil). If you constantly flood using irrigation, you cause salts to rise to the surface and ruin the soil.
The Soviet Union destroyed entire nations through bad irrigation policy, turning semi-arid soil into desert. You can find it in Wikipedia under man made disasters.
berserk? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:berserk? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking the gravity gun would have been enough defense though. At least with the coconuts you can sense them with a geiger counter. You can't be so sure with the head crabs and drop bears though..
Re:berserk? (Score:5, Funny)
(Okay, so most
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sinister translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sinister translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anthropologists As Well As Zoologists (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, Iran may be as islamistic as it gets, but they're humans after all and hopefully not stupid enough start a nuclear war.
Their opponents however, who are trying to do everything to prevent them from producing A-bombs in the first place, are not to be trusted that much, because they (America, Israel) are the ones that have started wars in the last couple of years (the latter only in "defense", but I think they/their PR may be able to produce one such "defense" case quickly).
On the other hand, there shouldn't be yet another A-armed nation. But that's a vicious circle: how is a nation without A-bombs going to defend itself against, say, America? It's nearly impossible to defend yourself against America at all these days - if don't have that bomb, there's nothing you can do. If you do have it, however, it's likely you're not gonna be attacked in the first place.
Maybe this is the reason we haven't seen a war in Iran yet. They are afraid. Uhm... on the other hand it's more likely to be due to the pain in the neck that is Iraq and the upcoming elections in America.
I must admit that those are speculations I'm really just pulling out of my ass... but hey, that's what the comments threads are for, aren't they? Oh dear, I can se the "leftie"/"commie"/"antisemite"-responses rushing in... but please, in the name of whatever deity you believe in: a Semite [wikipedia.org] may just as well be an Arab, so be correct and call me anti-Judaist. Which is not what I am, as I call some Jews my friends... btw: this article [studentpa.info] has not gotten the publicity it deserves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As it is, I think the US is more concerned about maintaining its hegemony than it is about preventing a nuclear war in the middle east.
Well, yes and no (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Turkey? The only nuclear weapons on Turkish soil are the ones stored at the USAF base at Inçirlik.
Don't Forget the Price (Score:3, Interesting)
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 area
SIGH (Score:3, Interesting)
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 weaponi
Nuke em all (Score:2)
No, wait...
Re:Nuke em all (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
what that tells you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better article and detail (Score:5, Informative)
The full story is that although some of the corals have bounced back remarkably, the nuking has also resulted in the localised extinction of some more sensitive sensitive species
Radiation and life (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you have a very thorough understanding of how the food chain works. Soylent Green will in turn be eaten by the younger population. We need to be taking care of what we feed our elderly!
Re:Radiation and life (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 fighti
Oblig: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Coconuts migrate on their own... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Coconuts migrate on their own... (Score:5, Funny)
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:Coconuts migrate on their own... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but.. (Score:5, Funny)
To people of Japan, your cities are no longer safe. Run for your lives. The coral is back, and this time it's pissed
Re: (Score:2)
Irradiated coconuts? (Score:2)
Chernobyl: Life in the dead zone (Score:2)
Actually, it is not anymore a deteriment to us (Score:4, Interesting)
200ft mutated iguana? (Score:2)
Cue the cut scenes of panicked citizens running away from the shoreline whilst an authoritative man barks orders into a microphone.
not those nuts... (Score:2)
At this point Beger realized he was pointing it to his crotch. It's all fun and analysis until someone grows another arm out of their back.
"It went berserk" (Score:2)
What was the reading?
How do you convert berserk to mSv/hr? (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
And due to alleged radioactivity of the area, patrols are likely scarce, law enforcement not too fond of exposing themselves to radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they could. But there are more thieves there. This area is empty, so it's probably easier and takes less time to get the same amount of fish, compared to the safe areas.
Re: (Score:2)
We're going right into the danger zone
Fishing in the danger zoooone
s/empty/dangerous/ (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Radiation similar to that at any Australian cit (Score:5, Funny)
What? You thought kangaroos were natural?