Inside Chernobyl, a strange new lifeform is blooming(cosmosmagazine.com)
cosmosmagazine.com
Inside Chernobyl, a strange new lifeform is blooming
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/2095/full
10 comments
The team looked to the example of photosynthesis as a model, said Casadevall. If plants can use the green pigment, chlorophyll, to absorb energy from the Sun and produce a usable form of chemical energy, they reasoned, fungi might be able to use their melanin pigment and radiation energy in a similar way. They even devised the snazzy moniker, 'radiosynthesis', for the process.
let me be the first to say: Holy Shit there's no telling what this could lead to in our understanding of how radiation affects living cells (cancer)
let me be the first to say: Holy Shit there's no telling what this could lead to in our understanding of how radiation affects living cells (cancer)
>Sitting at the centre of the exclusion zone, the damaged >reactor unit is encased in a steel and cement sarcophagus. >It's a deathly tomb that plays host to about 200 tonnes of >melted radioactive fuel, and is swarming with radioactive >dust
No kidding. Currently they are planning to drill holes into the mantle and to insert steel rods to stabilize the structure. (I think a british company is doing this.) Would be pretty bad if the cooling water would reach the ground water which is directly connected to the river.)
>let me be the first to say: Holy Shit there's no telling >what this could lead to in our understanding of how >radiation affects living cells (cancer)
In order for cells to be called cancer we need to have at least 5 or 6 different alterations of cell rna. This makes our physiology quite resilient against cancer compared to more simple lifeforms where maybe 2 alterations are enough for cancer there. Referring to the article though I am quite astounded how something can cope with the constant cell destruction/alteration.
Btw. I have seen pictures of the wildlife, its incredible how beautiful nature can be if humans keep their fingers away. (even if this region is radiated at immense levels.)
People living in this area are still having serious effects on their metabolism. Lack of finanical support from the goverment forces the people to rely on food which they harvest in the surroundings. This often causes a lot of trouble to kids and adults.
Coming back to the article again.... behind this research:
- Dee Carter, U. of Sidney http://www.mmb.usyd.edu.au/research/academic_profiles/dcarte...
Q: Has anyone a good pointer where to find more info on "pigment electronic structure" ?
Q: Somebody has a link to a paper or study about this?
Sorry for digressing so much...
No kidding. Currently they are planning to drill holes into the mantle and to insert steel rods to stabilize the structure. (I think a british company is doing this.) Would be pretty bad if the cooling water would reach the ground water which is directly connected to the river.)
>let me be the first to say: Holy Shit there's no telling >what this could lead to in our understanding of how >radiation affects living cells (cancer)
In order for cells to be called cancer we need to have at least 5 or 6 different alterations of cell rna. This makes our physiology quite resilient against cancer compared to more simple lifeforms where maybe 2 alterations are enough for cancer there. Referring to the article though I am quite astounded how something can cope with the constant cell destruction/alteration.
Btw. I have seen pictures of the wildlife, its incredible how beautiful nature can be if humans keep their fingers away. (even if this region is radiated at immense levels.)
People living in this area are still having serious effects on their metabolism. Lack of finanical support from the goverment forces the people to rely on food which they harvest in the surroundings. This often causes a lot of trouble to kids and adults.
Coming back to the article again.... behind this research:
- Dee Carter, U. of Sidney http://www.mmb.usyd.edu.au/research/academic_profiles/dcarte...
Q: Has anyone a good pointer where to find more info on "pigment electronic structure" ?
Q: Somebody has a link to a paper or study about this?
Sorry for digressing so much...
>> This is a more radical version of the panspermia theory of Crick and Ponampurama ... I think in a hundred years if people do biology they will think it quite silly that people once thought that spores could not be blown from one star system to another by cosmic radiation pressure.
Fungi adapt to feed off radiation? Terence McKenna would be amused.
Fungi adapt to feed off radiation? Terence McKenna would be amused.
This kinds of stuff makes me wonder - if we send enough fungi onto other planets, can it adapt to live there, too?
I say start shooting bacterial-fungi rockets at Venus/Mars and lets skip ahead a billion years to see if they're nice and blue/green like our planet.
[deleted]
That this trait could be bioengineered for space colonization, is the most interesting and exciting possibility for this discovery.
You mean, human/fungus hybrids who can survive unprotected on the surface of the Moon or Mars?
Lol, that brings to mind a bunch of little goombas marching around Mars.
I was thinking more along the lines of a basis for creating a sustainable food source. There's lots of radiation up there...
I was thinking more along the lines of a basis for creating a sustainable food source. There's lots of radiation up there...
New? No, absolutely.
If it were so, any cancer would be a 'new lifeform'.
BTW: why do you want it to be 'new'? What's the real motivation behind? Please answer!
If it were so, any cancer would be a 'new lifeform'.
BTW: why do you want it to be 'new'? What's the real motivation behind? Please answer!
Gojira!
So... Godzilla might be real after all.
Nuclear reactors are somewhat too complicated, fragile and have not the most perfect safety track record. If we could develop an efficient technique to directly convert such radiation into electricity, we could have much cleaner and safer radioactive power generation that can also provide some very tasty fungi.
I say we should look into this.
I say we should look into this.
nuclear energy is safer, per watt generated, than any other scalable energy. Even if you include hiroshima and nagasaki in nuclear energy's death toll.
If Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened on a yearly basis, it (the ~220,000 people) doesn't even pale in comparison to the 4.6 million people who die from fossil fuel burning.
Since I was born, 92 million peoeple have died from fossil fuel burning (likely more as it's gotten cleaner) and if the nuclear bombings happened every year only 4.4 million people would have died from 400 nuclear bombings.
Since I was born, 92 million peoeple have died from fossil fuel burning (likely more as it's gotten cleaner) and if the nuclear bombings happened every year only 4.4 million people would have died from 400 nuclear bombings.
I don't know much about it's safety, but I do know that it's very clean. I read somewhere (either popsci or sciam) that they have found a way to recycle the waste repeatedly, dramatically reducing the amount of waste produced.
Show me the numbers please.
Fossil fuels kill 20,000 people a year in the US, that's a well established fact. It also kills around 100,000 people in China from mining coal, they don't even publish how many people die from smog but my guess is that it's way, way above the comparative 60,000 people who would die if they had US air quality laws.
The World Health Organisation figures put the death toll at 3 million people a year for air pollution due to vehicles, power plants and industry. Another 1.6 million people die a year from burning solid fossil fuel (coal) in their homes for heat. So 4.6 million people die from fossil fuels a year.
The death toll reported by Greenpeace, which has been criticised for being too high, since Chernobyl places the total deaths at around 200,000 in Ukrane, Belarus and Russia. However, going by official figures the total is only 4,000 people.
I'm sorry, but it's complete bullshit to say "show me the numbers" like the evidence hasn't existed for decades. More people die yearly in the US from -SAFE- burning of fossil fuels than have died from the worlds -WORST- nuclear -DISASTER-.
In fact, to compare the yearly death rate of nuclear reactors to coal reactors. Well 100 million people have died since chernobyl happened from fossil fuel pollutions and those are figures from the WHO, and 4,000 people have died from chernobyl that's 25,000:1 ratio in favour of nuclear power. -HOWEVER-, I'll be kind and I'll use unofficial figures from Greenpeace, and oh it's still 500:1 ratio in favour of nuclear power.
At its worst nuclear power is 500 times SAFER than fossil fuels, and official figures make it 25,000 times safer than fossil fuels. Those are the figures!
In fact, the World Nuclear Assosiation did a study on the safety of nuclear reactors and compared death rates between, Coal, Natural gas, Hydro and Nuclear plants. Nuclear had 31 fatalities between 1970 and 1992 in the US and UK, however Coal had 6,400 fatalities between the same dates. Those are people just doing their jobs.
So those are the numbers. The official ones clearly show that nuclear power is by far the safest energy source in the world.
Also the big horrendus disaster (how the media portrays it at least) at Three Mile Island, injured no one who didn't work at the plant. In fact, everybody in the 10 mile radius of the plant was exposed to the equivalent amount of radiation as a chest x-ray. That doesn't even go near how much damage a CT scan does to the human body, and you can have several of those a year without even having an insignificant (yes insignificant) chance of cancer.
Oh, before I forget. Coal plants release around 100 times the amount of radiation per watt than a nuclear plant does. The radioactive dust released from Three Mile Island was essentially insignificant, as said people in 10 miles only recieved a chest X-ray, however coal plants release 155 times that a year when operating safely compared to a major nuclear accident.
I'm so amused by those figures. Nuclear accidents are catagorically far safer than coal plants that operate safely!
The World Health Organisation figures put the death toll at 3 million people a year for air pollution due to vehicles, power plants and industry. Another 1.6 million people die a year from burning solid fossil fuel (coal) in their homes for heat. So 4.6 million people die from fossil fuels a year.
The death toll reported by Greenpeace, which has been criticised for being too high, since Chernobyl places the total deaths at around 200,000 in Ukrane, Belarus and Russia. However, going by official figures the total is only 4,000 people.
I'm sorry, but it's complete bullshit to say "show me the numbers" like the evidence hasn't existed for decades. More people die yearly in the US from -SAFE- burning of fossil fuels than have died from the worlds -WORST- nuclear -DISASTER-.
In fact, to compare the yearly death rate of nuclear reactors to coal reactors. Well 100 million people have died since chernobyl happened from fossil fuel pollutions and those are figures from the WHO, and 4,000 people have died from chernobyl that's 25,000:1 ratio in favour of nuclear power. -HOWEVER-, I'll be kind and I'll use unofficial figures from Greenpeace, and oh it's still 500:1 ratio in favour of nuclear power.
At its worst nuclear power is 500 times SAFER than fossil fuels, and official figures make it 25,000 times safer than fossil fuels. Those are the figures!
In fact, the World Nuclear Assosiation did a study on the safety of nuclear reactors and compared death rates between, Coal, Natural gas, Hydro and Nuclear plants. Nuclear had 31 fatalities between 1970 and 1992 in the US and UK, however Coal had 6,400 fatalities between the same dates. Those are people just doing their jobs.
So those are the numbers. The official ones clearly show that nuclear power is by far the safest energy source in the world.
Also the big horrendus disaster (how the media portrays it at least) at Three Mile Island, injured no one who didn't work at the plant. In fact, everybody in the 10 mile radius of the plant was exposed to the equivalent amount of radiation as a chest x-ray. That doesn't even go near how much damage a CT scan does to the human body, and you can have several of those a year without even having an insignificant (yes insignificant) chance of cancer.
Oh, before I forget. Coal plants release around 100 times the amount of radiation per watt than a nuclear plant does. The radioactive dust released from Three Mile Island was essentially insignificant, as said people in 10 miles only recieved a chest X-ray, however coal plants release 155 times that a year when operating safely compared to a major nuclear accident.
I'm so amused by those figures. Nuclear accidents are catagorically far safer than coal plants that operate safely!
/agreed
I would like to add that there is a problem with the safety of nuclear power because of the way humans react to danger.
When nuclear power fails and kills people it kills a relatively large number of people. Coal is constantly killing people over a large area. Coal deaths don't make good new events, but nuclear deaths do. This makes people more aware of the dangers of nuclear power. This makes people more afraid of nuclear power, even though it is statistically safer.
It's the same thing with airplanes. People die in car crashes everyday, but it's world/national news when a plane crashes. Thus, people are more afraid of planes than cars.
I wouldn't say that it's the news' fault either, they are simply reporting on things people are interested in.
Modern computer aided design, pebble bed reactors, and reusing nuclear waste as fuel make nuclear power far safer than anyone in their right mind would require. People working to advocate nuclear power would do better to shift focus from safety to fighting this perception problem.
I would like to add that there is a problem with the safety of nuclear power because of the way humans react to danger.
When nuclear power fails and kills people it kills a relatively large number of people. Coal is constantly killing people over a large area. Coal deaths don't make good new events, but nuclear deaths do. This makes people more aware of the dangers of nuclear power. This makes people more afraid of nuclear power, even though it is statistically safer.
It's the same thing with airplanes. People die in car crashes everyday, but it's world/national news when a plane crashes. Thus, people are more afraid of planes than cars.
I wouldn't say that it's the news' fault either, they are simply reporting on things people are interested in.
Modern computer aided design, pebble bed reactors, and reusing nuclear waste as fuel make nuclear power far safer than anyone in their right mind would require. People working to advocate nuclear power would do better to shift focus from safety to fighting this perception problem.
I wasn't saying "show me the numbers" as in "I don't believe you", it was just out of interest. Sorry if it came out in a rude way but it is quite common for people to make unsupported claims on the internets.
I am thankful for the enlightening answer.
Look at how many people are killed each year by pollution from coal and other power plants. It's FAR more then nuclear. Plus coal plants release millions of time more radiation into the air then nuclear does.
Alpha? (Probably not.) Beta? Gamma? If it's beta then that's quite cool, but if it's gamma then that's amazing - melanin a protein that can absorb gamma radiation??
Edit: Looked it up, caesium-137 makes beta radiation.