I can tell you from first hand experience (growing up in Colchester, UK) that there was "evidence" of the effects from Chernobyl pretty quickly. My parents house backs onto a woodland populated by many Willor trees. Most of which (whom?) displayed bizarre clumped branching habits within a few years of the event. It's quite clear - none of this showed during the growth of even rather old willows - UNTIL Chernobyl, after which it was common to see, but only in Willows, and not the adjacent Oaks
I have yet to hear measurements in the news. I want some numbers. All the media talks about is relative to "normal". e.g. "20 times" 100 times" ... etc. They don't use units or explain anything.
@kaviaari He was saying the effects were felt in Finland, etc... saying Chernobyl was a wide-spread event.. opposed to the Japan event, which, at least of this time, has not been detected outside of the japan area.
@kaviaari he was talking about the radiation that drifted on the wind to places like Finland and the Lake District (in the UK)... That is why he said Lake District too....
I promise you he does not think Chernobyl is in either Finland or England's Lake District either!!!
@nottinghamscience I was just honored that he actaully mentioned finland because I'm from there =D ad luckily we had almost no effect at all from the chernobyl.
@nottinghamscience just a thought on this whole Chernobyl misunderstanding - nowadays, it's always a risk to make mental shortcut and expect it to be followed correctly. I don't know whether such comments as kaviaai's are the result of being pesky or a result of a complete inability to understand what is actually being said. You, Brady, and all the Nottingham science team have my support and all the best wishes! Great work!
@kaviaari He was talking about the effect that weather and wind have on spreading the radioactive fallout and he is saying that we saw this effect (the effect of wind scattering the fallout) when the reactor in Chernobyl blew up, in Finland etc.
I believe he is referring to the high-radiation alarm that went off at a nuclear reactor in Finland after Chernobyl. If I remember correctly, the news of that alarm is what forced the Ukrainian government to admit that something had happened.
@madjimms It can, not by radiation I think. But there are certain mutations which allow DNA bases to change order, substitute bases, or insert random bases into a chain of DNA.
@madjimms Hmm... Technically, as far as I know, cancer is a mutation "gone wrong", but every now and then a beneficial mutation can happen, and if spread through the gene pool you'll see an evolutionary trend.
I dunno if it's the same process, but if it is, I'm curious to think that radiation could indeed create a beneficial DNA mutation, it's just that chances are really slim? :P A biologist can probably explain why that's absolutely not the case, but it's a fun and fascinating thought! :)
@dradeelP: It is of the class of mutations termed bad, that are not quite bad enough to kill the cell outright. It's just "a little bit bad". If cancer caused a fairly immediate death it wouldn't be nearly as ugly as it is; instead it slowly debases the organization necessary to carry on complex life. The chances are slim that radiation by itself will cause cancer, but are rather better with all the other sources of mutations in eukaryotic cells.
... To answer your other question, yes, it is absolutely possible for a mutation caused by radiation to be beneficial. The greatest source of mutation is transcription errors during cell splitting, or mitosis. For a fast moving particle ripping through a cell, there are a lot more targets than just the DNA molecules in the nucleus.
@madjimms Yes, but it isn't going to cause evolutionary changes in the individual, there is a slim chance it could affect the sperm or egg (sex cells) and that mutation be passed on to children, but the odds are probably a little greater that a mutation of that sort will be detrimental to successful reproduction.
@madjimms There are four things that can happen when a cell is exposed to ionizing radiation: 1) nothing, 2) damages unimportant/irrelevant part of the DNA (your complete genetic code is in every cell [except sex cells and red blood cells], for example the code for eye color is also in the big toe), 3) damages and kills the cell, 4) and this is the one that causes mutations and cancer, damages the cell causing it to stop normal function but is still alive and reproduces (mitosis).
@madjimms To get a mutation, like super powers, all of the cells in a particular region would have to be damaged in the same way and in a way that is beneficial. The odds of that are incredibly low, if not nil.
Helpful mutations to DNA would have to occur prior to or shortly after conception.
Where we went reached the level 7 (Chernobyl) level last night!
Time for a new video.
TelcoPhil 10 months ago
Chin - Hobble
heh
roidroid 11 months ago
I can tell you from first hand experience (growing up in Colchester, UK) that there was "evidence" of the effects from Chernobyl pretty quickly. My parents house backs onto a woodland populated by many Willor trees. Most of which (whom?) displayed bizarre clumped branching habits within a few years of the event. It's quite clear - none of this showed during the growth of even rather old willows - UNTIL Chernobyl, after which it was common to see, but only in Willows, and not the adjacent Oaks
ThePCMechanic 11 months ago
@ThePCMechanic
Thank you very much for that piece of evidence!
Very interesting indeed! I fear the worst for the people of Japan. Radiation levels are crazy.
I expect that there will be a huge spike in cancer patients and deformed babies in the years to come.
Ugh. The Japanese government makes me cringe. They haven't done anything.
Anyway, I don't want to start rambling...
Have a nice day! :)
kodoku7otaku 8 months ago
I have yet to hear measurements in the news. I want some numbers. All the media talks about is relative to "normal". e.g. "20 times" 100 times" ... etc. They don't use units or explain anything.
fegolem 11 months ago
@fegolem i believe i heard this morning the plant was giving off around 400 mSv to people around the plant.
metadaptation 11 months ago
@fegolem but take that with a grain of salt. CNN, BBC or any other news source barely knows anything, Japan isn't revealing anything.
metadaptation 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Tšernobyl accident happened in Ukraine, most certainly not in Finland.
kaviaari 11 months ago
@kaviaari He was saying the effects were felt in Finland, etc... saying Chernobyl was a wide-spread event.. opposed to the Japan event, which, at least of this time, has not been detected outside of the japan area.
todkapuz 11 months ago
@kaviaari
I think what he means is that Finland was affected by the radioactive particles carried from Chernobyl by the wind.
FnordPerfect 11 months ago
@kaviaari he was talking about the radiation that drifted on the wind to places like Finland and the Lake District (in the UK)... That is why he said Lake District too....
I promise you he does not think Chernobyl is in either Finland or England's Lake District either!!!
nottinghamscience 11 months ago 51
@nottinghamscience I was just honored that he actaully mentioned finland because I'm from there =D ad luckily we had almost no effect at all from the chernobyl.
makettaja 11 months ago
@nottinghamscience just a thought on this whole Chernobyl misunderstanding - nowadays, it's always a risk to make mental shortcut and expect it to be followed correctly. I don't know whether such comments as kaviaai's are the result of being pesky or a result of a complete inability to understand what is actually being said. You, Brady, and all the Nottingham science team have my support and all the best wishes! Great work!
pafnoocy 11 months ago
@kaviaari I think he's talking about Chernobyl blowing up and causing problems in Finland, etc.
odysseus9672 11 months ago
@kaviaari He was talking about the effect that weather and wind have on spreading the radioactive fallout and he is saying that we saw this effect (the effect of wind scattering the fallout) when the reactor in Chernobyl blew up, in Finland etc.
milosQaX 11 months ago
@kaviaari
I believe he is referring to the high-radiation alarm that went off at a nuclear reactor in Finland after Chernobyl. If I remember correctly, the news of that alarm is what forced the Ukrainian government to admit that something had happened.
spayum2 11 months ago
@spayum2: Ummm, you mean the Soviet government. The Ukraine government was just the normal Soviet client state, doing as told.
puncheex 11 months ago
@kaviaari You were the quick one in your class, weren't you?
TakronRust 11 months ago 9
Can DNA be altered & not have parts destroyed?
All I can think of is a warp speed micro evolutionary type situation if the DNA was rearranged a different way.
madjimms 11 months ago
@madjimms It can, not by radiation I think. But there are certain mutations which allow DNA bases to change order, substitute bases, or insert random bases into a chain of DNA.
Halo3ForumEurope 11 months ago
@madjimms Hmm... Technically, as far as I know, cancer is a mutation "gone wrong", but every now and then a beneficial mutation can happen, and if spread through the gene pool you'll see an evolutionary trend.
I dunno if it's the same process, but if it is, I'm curious to think that radiation could indeed create a beneficial DNA mutation, it's just that chances are really slim? :P A biologist can probably explain why that's absolutely not the case, but it's a fun and fascinating thought! :)
dradeel 11 months ago
@dradeelP: It is of the class of mutations termed bad, that are not quite bad enough to kill the cell outright. It's just "a little bit bad". If cancer caused a fairly immediate death it wouldn't be nearly as ugly as it is; instead it slowly debases the organization necessary to carry on complex life. The chances are slim that radiation by itself will cause cancer, but are rather better with all the other sources of mutations in eukaryotic cells.
puncheex 11 months ago
... To answer your other question, yes, it is absolutely possible for a mutation caused by radiation to be beneficial. The greatest source of mutation is transcription errors during cell splitting, or mitosis. For a fast moving particle ripping through a cell, there are a lot more targets than just the DNA molecules in the nucleus.
puncheex 11 months ago
@madjimms Yes, but it isn't going to cause evolutionary changes in the individual, there is a slim chance it could affect the sperm or egg (sex cells) and that mutation be passed on to children, but the odds are probably a little greater that a mutation of that sort will be detrimental to successful reproduction.
mrericsully 11 months ago
@madjimms There are four things that can happen when a cell is exposed to ionizing radiation: 1) nothing, 2) damages unimportant/irrelevant part of the DNA (your complete genetic code is in every cell [except sex cells and red blood cells], for example the code for eye color is also in the big toe), 3) damages and kills the cell, 4) and this is the one that causes mutations and cancer, damages the cell causing it to stop normal function but is still alive and reproduces (mitosis).
mrericsully 11 months ago
@madjimms To get a mutation, like super powers, all of the cells in a particular region would have to be damaged in the same way and in a way that is beneficial. The odds of that are incredibly low, if not nil.
Helpful mutations to DNA would have to occur prior to or shortly after conception.
mrericsully 11 months ago
@mrericsully So we need to put stem cells in an irradiated state & we could see some uber neato mutations?
madjimms 11 months ago