nuclear-news

While the USA gets in on the decommissioning funding after the Kennedy visit, funding for research science remains non exsistent!

…. Current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his government have promised to boost science; they should encourage and support researchers from around the world in collecting and sharing information. Chernobyl was a missed opportunity for post-accident research — in that sense at least, Fukushima could do much better…..

03 September 2013

http://www.nature.com/news/nuclear-error-1.13667

Letter from Professor Timothy Mousseau concerning a recent 
report on a limited study on birds in Fukushima - 27 April 2014

Extract

"Let me start by saying the Dr. Galvan is a very bright and 
hard working young biologist whose scientific credentials are 
impeccable, in fact beyond excellent. Through his hard work he 
has managed to find these novel and potentially very important 
responses in natural populations that have never been seen before. 
His credentials are beyond reproach in every way and we are very 
grateful for his very significant contributions to this evolving 
study of wildlife in Chernobyl and Fukushima. 
My only regret is that we don't have the resources to find more 
creative, bright, hard working young biologists like him to help 
us with these studies. 

Full text;

Hopefully there will be some more comprehensive coverage of this latest paper that includes some discussion of the broader picture that includes the context for how such “positive” responses have evolved and how they are not unexpected given the intensity of “unnatural” selection (i.e.
Negative effects) imposed by the radioactive contaminants in the area.

Let me start by saying the Dr. Galvan is a very bright and hard working young biologist whose scientific credentials are impeccable, in fact beyond excellent. Through his hard work he has managed to find these novel and potentially very important responses in natural populations that have never been seen before. His credentials are beyond reproach in every way and we are very grateful for his very significant contributions to this evolving study of wildlife in Chernobyl and Fukushima. My only regret is that we don’t have the resources to find more creative, bright, hard
working young biologists like him to help us with these studies.

Below are some quotes that I am sharing related to the current study on adaptation that puts things into an evolutionary context:

“Our previous studies in Chernobyl show a wide array of negative consequences of exposure to radiation for most species. However, the species that are remaining appear to have either evolved or are pre-adapted to the contaminants through increased allocation of antioxidants as a defense against the radiation. Some of these birds even show reduced levels of genetic damage in areas of intermediate contamination perhaps reflecting an effect of acclimation to the radiation. It remains to be shown experimentally whether all birds show such a response, or just the ones that are surviving under these hazardous conditions.

“These observations do not suggest that these birds are not negatively impacted overall ­ our previous studies show significant increases in cataracts, tumors, reduced fertility, and smaller brain sizes, even in these birds that show some level of adaptation. However, the “unnatural selection” imposed by radiation appears to favor individuals with the ability to allocate antioxidants towards protection from ionizing radiation, and this is not surprising given the strength of the negative effects in the hottest parts of the Chernobyl Zone.

“Comparisons between Fukushima and Chernobyl suggest that 20+ years of selection has led to smaller negative impacts on population growth rates in Chernobyl than for the same birds in Fukushima four months after the disaster further supporting the hypothesis that natural selection has favored individuals that have allocated antioxidants towards the defense of cellular damage caused by ionizing radiation.

“This latest paper may be a little confusing to some as it appears to contradict some of our previous findings. However, these two messages are not contradictory and positive and negative responses are not mutually exclusive when it comes to evolution by natural selection in the face of environmental stress. These latest observations simply suggest that evolution is proceeding as expected, all the more so given the intensity of selection we have previously documented. Negative fitness consequences of the radiation provide the evolutionary “pressure” for organisms to
evolve adaptations in the face of this stress.”

In short, “positive” (as in adaptive) responses are an expected outcome of the negative pressures exerted by the elevated radiation levels in these regions. Given all that we know about evolution, it would be surprising if we didn’t see adaptations arising in this way.

May 22, 2014 - Posted by arclight2011part2 | Uncategorized