Radiation-Resistant Plants Could Be Used In Space 132
Hugh Pickens writes "New Scientist reports that two decades after the world's largest nuclear disaster, life around Chernobyl continues to adapt, with Chernobyl soya containing significantly different amounts of several dozen proteins, including one protein involved in defending cells from heavy metal and radiation damage. 'One protein is known to actually protect human blood from radiation,' says Martin Hajduch of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. In a study to determine how plants might have adapted to the meltdown, Hajduch's team compared soya grown in radioactive plots near Chernobyl with plants grown about 100 km away in uncontaminated soil. Results from the study suggest that adaptation toward heavy metal stress, protection against radiation damage, and mobilization of seed storage proteins are involved in the plant adaptation mechanism to radioactivity in the Chernobyl region (abstract). Determining how plants coped with life after Chernobyl could help scientists engineer radiation-resistant plants. While few farmers are eager to cultivate radioactive plots on Earth, future interplanetary travelers may one day need to grow crops to withstand space radiation."
but are they (Score:3, Funny)
first post resistant?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I am all for a reinvented Holocaust that, rather than killing jews, we round up thugs and put them out of our misery. The number one problem in the US and the world right now are thugs that believe acting like animals is the proper way to function in society. All they do is impregnant/get pregnant, wait for the welfare check, and cause meaningless acts of violence. I say if they really love reenacting 50 cent, lets put them on the receiving end of a bullet and see how much they like it. Thugs cause property damage, are harmful to quality of life, and put an undue burden on the state to support them. They are an eye sore of society and there should be a call to arms to take any and all thugs out. Being a thug transcends race, nationality, or color, it is a choice that needs to be crushed. No one should have to live in fear or be on high alert because a burden of the state decide he wants to have some fun and rob/rape/kill someone. Let's turn the tables on these animals and end them all. All those dead thugs will also be less people to contribute to our carbon foot print and more resources to people who actually need them. Imagine how many students would be able to get an education if there were more money freed up from having to feed, clothe, and house a useless thug. These belligerents of society need a new Holocaust to end their world forever, and only then will the world progress.
Being a thug is actually being promoted by the mainstream media. What are you going to do about that? And where do you draw the line between a thug-like behaviour and social-inconvenient behaviour? And most thugs tend to kill each other off, so there's no problem. And the current US crisis is a white-collar crime, who are you going to shoot?
Posting AC, let the mods waste their points on something else.
Politically Correct? (Score:1)
I for one... (Score:3, Funny)
Welcome our radioactive plant overlords....
Re:I for one... (Score:4, Funny)
...can I still call dibs on the patent, or did someone else already do it?
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Funny)
Would those be of the Audrey II or Triffid variety? Inquiring extraterrestrial-vegetation-phobics want to know.
Re:I for one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget the bacteria that also thrives in radioactive environments!
If anything will survive a hard radiation situation it's bacteria, plants and other kinds of simple life.
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no "simple" kinds of life. Dismiss that notion from your mind. It may be what you learnt in school or from popular culture, but it isn't accurate.
Living things everywhere are shaped by evolutionary pressures. The niches they occupy and the threats they face differ, so too do the mechanisms by which they adapt. But from a basic level, there are no orders of lesser to greater life, except those that exist in our collective imagination.
Life does not become more advanced. It becomes better adapted to the challenges. "Survival of the fittest" here means fit in the sense of adapted, not "superior" (which is one reason why the phrase is rarely used by people who know the subject well).
Bigger life forms may be more complex in the sense of having more parts, or possessing intelligence, but they are not more advanced in any meaningful way. Culturally, we draw a distinction between intelligent and unintelligent life, but intelligence itself is simply another survival mechanism. One that we value as a species, but for reasons unrelated to survival itself.
The reason the smallest living things adapt swiftly to new threats like ionizing radiation has to with reproductive span. The faster you breed, the more quickly you can adapt. Larger forms of life breed, and therefor adapt, more slowly. So in the aftermath of a nuclear disaster (or war), the first to recover are naturally the smallest, but not because they are any simpler.
Re:I for one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Describing something as "simple" doesn't imply that it is inferior.
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on what the opposite is.
Simple versus advanced, which is the way most people use the word, is plainly wrong when talking about biology. The myth of the "higher" and "lower" forms of life is one that persists in the public consciousness, but it's been rejected in scientific circles for the better part a century.
Simple versus complex is a slightly different story. You can describe a multi-cellular organism as more complex in biological terms than a single-celled one in the same way you can say a personal computer is more complex than a single microchip. In those cases, complexity is a shorthand way of referring to the number of "parts" involved, be those parts organ systems or machine components.
It's still not the preferred way of distinguishing the two, owing to the confusion it causes. When a biologist says "simple" people take it for granted that the opposite is "advanced", which is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple versus advanced, which is the way most people use the word, is plainly wrong when talking about biology. The myth of the "higher" and "lower" forms of life is one that persists in the public consciousness, but it's been rejected in scientific circles for the better part a century.
Simple versus complex is a slightly different story.
No matter which words you try to use, it will still boil down in people's minds as "which is the best?". That and the obsession with "the first" are things that you can't seem to educate out of people (probably because the education system is obsessed with the bests and the firsts).
The thing about "lower" life is that it has been perfecting that simple form for longer than our advanced kind has existed. We may look at those immobile plants and think "ah! We can easily run circles around you!", but they have
Re: (Score:1)
When a biologist says "simple" people take it for granted that the opposite is "advanced", which is wrong.
And yet somehow, there remains *some* quality that while intangible and difficult to pinpoint, most definitely exists and constitutes what we would ordinarily intuitively characterize as "advanced". How odd.
Of *course* such a thing as "advanced" life exists; if it did not, we would all just look around puzzled when somebody used the term, and funnily enough, we don't --- in fact amazingly (for a concept that you say doesn't exist), we all know *exactly* what somebody means when they speak that way. Weird he
So what you're saying is.... (Score:2)
words mean different things depending on context?
Fascinating.
Re:I for one... (Score:4, Interesting)
You are implying something, which the grand-parent did not. simple is lesser, complex -> more advanced -> better.
> Bigger life forms may be more complex in the sense of having more parts, or possessing intelligence, but they are not more advanced in any meaningful way.
So there are more complex lifeforms. Who said something about more advanced? Still, even more advanced wouldn't be wrong. It just means later in time or intricate.
That people implicate better or higher is the mistake, as you already put it correctly.
> So in the aftermath of a nuclear disaster (or war), the first to recover are naturally the smallest, but not because they are any simpler.
Also because they are simpler. Smash a rock and a clock with a hammer, and what are the chances you get something useful of either things?
Another reason is, that more complex life-forms are usually dependent on simpler ones.
Re: (Score:2)
You are implying something, which the grand-parent did not. simple is lesser, complex -> more advanced -> better.
Perhaps I misunderstood him. In the event I did, I apologize, however my point stands for anyone else who agrees with the misconception I thought I saw in his post.
So there are more complex lifeforms. Who said something about more advanced? Still, even more advanced wouldn't be wrong. It just means later in time or intricate.
No, more advanced would in fact be wrong. So too would later in time - bacteria are older than us, not the other way around.
What measure are you using for "advanced"? Intelligence, size, number of parts maybe? Those aren't what matters, biologically or evolutionarily. Those matter to us, because we are a large, intelligent species with a gre
Re: (Score:1)
That people implicate better or higher is the mistake, as you already put it correctly.
Nope, sorry, still not a mistake. Only a "mistake" from the pure genetics / biology viewpoint. But that isn't the only one that exists.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, but if you smash a hard drive with a hammer you get some pretty cool magnets. And broken ones and zeros all over the table.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no "simple" kinds of life. Dismiss that notion from your mind.
False. An single-celled amoeba is more simple than a human. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See here, where I make that point clear:
Simple versus complex as opposed to simple versus advanced [slashdot.org]
Perhaps the GP knew this and meant simple in that sense. I didn't read his post that way however, since he described plants and bacteria in the same breath as "simple", which is incorrect in several ways.
Best comparison I can give you is this: A single celled organism is simpler than a multicellular one in the same way a microchip is simpler than a computer. To describe either as less advanced is obviously
Re: (Score:2)
Simple life forms having only one cell type in opposite to complex life forms constructed by multiple specialized cell types.
The simple cell forms only have to adapt one cell type to survive while the complex needs to adapt multiple cell types.
Re: (Score:1)
I share part of your very rational rejection of anthropocentric views, but I cannot aggree that intelligence is simply another survival mechanism. If for nothing else, for breaking your axiom of "the faster you breed, the more quickly you can adapt". That could be true for purely Darwinian evolution, but intelligence and the passing of information or culture among individuals can take evolution to a higher level of (more than) Lamarkian evolution.
In other words, I think we adapted even quicker that plants,
Re: (Score:2)
"the faster you breed, the more quickly you can adapt". That could be true for purely Darwinian evolution...
In other words, I think we adapted even quicker that plants, but putting on rad-suits or getting away from the area, and telling others about the danger.
I think he was only talking about "adaptation" in the biological evolution/genetic sense of the word. A species that becomes radiation resistant and one that simply gets killed off in the affected area have both adapted in the general sense of t
Re: (Score:2)
Life does not become more advanced. It becomes better adapted to the challenges. "Survival of the fittest" here means fit in the sense of adapted, not "superior" (which is one reason why the phrase is rarely used by people who know the subject well).
Oh for heavens sake will you put this "we are all the same." The only reason evolution is taught like this is that left wingers didn't want capitalists to use evolution as an argument for laissez fair economics, and no one wanted evolution to be used as an excu
Re: (Score:1)
Bigger life forms may be more complex in the sense of having more parts, or possessing intelligence, but they are not more advanced in any meaningful way.
Highly evolved intelligence is not "more advanced in any meaningful way"? You must either know a different English to the one I'm familiar with, or live in a different Universe. You're just playing around with semantics in erudite language but saying nothing really. How can you claim what constitutes "advanced" anyway, are you God? You don't even know what our sentience means, nobody does, yet when you consider the Dawkins quote that "We are the Universe, thinking", and then together with that consider the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many plants have very large genomes. That's because plants are very old and have worked out genetic codes for a lot of different scenarios. They are by no means "simple"; they are some of the most complex organisms on earth.
It would be interesting to find out how much of these changes are evolutionary changes and how much are already built into the plants(!)
Re: (Score:2)
Life goes on? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you put a bunch of life forms into a high stress environment, evolution is going to happen quickly. Clearly, the gene for radiation resistance is going to quickly become prevalent in a population exposed to large amounts of radiation....
Somewhere, Darwin smiles quietly.
Re:Life goes on? (Score:5, Funny)
In his grave, maybe? Quietly because he's dead, perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can say I have a spirit, a set of behaviors that are independent of my "body"
Doubtful. Your brain belongs to your body and all your behaviours are encoded in the pathways of the brain. It's just a game of following the input signals, observing the outputs and realising there's not central processing "place" etc.
Book suggestion: Consciousness : An Introduction - Susan Blackmore
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I meant here that the "self interest" of the spirit is independent of the "self interest" of the body
Sure - it's about the genes & memes. There's absolutely no "spirit" involved anywhere though.
Public Perceptions (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people believe that any radioactive event will render an area lifeless for tens of thousands of years. Similarly, the fear of a "dirty bomb" persists, despite the fact that surviving the initial blast represents less increased risk of cancer than smoking cigarettes or having a poor diet. There would be possibly huge cleanup costs, but probably cheaper than a few weeks in Iraq.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Public Perceptions (Score:5, Insightful)
people will squeal like stuck pigs about food colourings, radiation, asbestos, CO2 (hah seriously) and then they will pop open a diet coke and eat some geneticly enhanced chicken mcnuggets.
Re:Public Perceptions (Score:5, Insightful)
Food colouring? That was kinda random.
Asbestos has less to do with the dangers it poses, and more to do with the way we used it freely decades ago. People do overreact, but it's a response to a time in which the stuff was used for everything down to cigarette butts.
I'll agree with you on radiation though. There are far too few people who know enough about physics and biology to understand the problem rationally. Moreover, I think we as a culture are still stinging from the cold war, and the notion that we might one day face the reality of widespread fallout. "Nuclear" is still a dirty word.
Side note: you mentioned genetically engineered chicken as something people hypocritically don't worry about. That isn't the case in my experience; genetic engineering is becoming the new nuke in the eyes of the public. Google "frankenfood", or look at the popularity of food advertised as being free of engineering, in the same breath as advertising it free of pesticides and hormones.
Re:Public Perceptions (Score:5, Informative)
Food colouring? That was kinda random.
Not really [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Public Perceptions (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop eating...EVERYTHING!
This whole GE bit is nonsense and drives me up the wall. We've been doing it for thousands of years with domestication, selective breeding, and tightly controlled pollination methods. Hello Mr. common moo-moo cow, common yellow banana(ever eaten a seeded banana? blah), flightless chicken, stupid turkey, various improved breeds of corn, wheat, rice, and rye.
Greetings Man's Best Friend, I realize we've been improving your species for the last 10,000yrs for various reasons. Still friends right?
Special interest groups, and the media need to dig their heads out of their asses.
Re: (Score:2)
various improved breeds
Sensible people who are in favour of GE labelling are in it for one thing: we'd like to be able to not choose commercially owned monoculture species.
It has nothing to do with personal health, and everything to do with not wanting to contribute more than we have to toward the coming argi-ecological disaster. Bananas are the obvious example to illustrate this cautionary tale, but beef is almost as bad due to the tiny number of bulls used for artificial insemination, and GE foods are a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I take it that you don't eat bananas(feel free to pick one of several different varieties however, just remember the common banana was a genetic mistake), one of the three main staples of rice, or one of the 5 modern varieties of potatoes(even though there are 50 grown around the world for consumption). Let alone any of the modern types of rye or wheat then.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends are you? You do realize that there isn't much of a difference between using the old method of straining plants, and using direct genetic manipulation right? Of course, you don't see GE'd crops that are spliced with fis
Re: (Score:2)
People fear cancer, perhaps more than any other disease. Plenty of things will kill you, but cancer is cancer...
Telling someone that a terrorist can give you cancer by setting off a bomb from which you are completely safe, blast-wise, is a terrifying thought. The reality is obviously far less interesting (as other posters point out), but the concept is no less terrifying for that.
I was pretty scared by Event Horizon, even though I don't plan on teleporting through hyperspace...
Re:Public Perceptions (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the cynic might suggest that most people see the "war on terror" in all its excesses, as a much lighter burden than a good diet and some exercise...
Re:Public Perceptions (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people believe that any radioactive event will render an area lifeless for tens of thousands of years.
"Hiroshima is contaminated with radiation. It will be barren of life and nothing will grow for 75 years. [hiroshima.jp]" These words were spoken in an interview with Dr. Harold Jacobsen, a scientist with the Manhattan Project (the A-bomb development project), and printed in the Washington Post on August 8, 1945.
In Hiroshima, they have that quote on a plaque at the foot of a tree, scorched from the bottom up to a point where it had been broken by the blast, and with the trunk having re-sprouted there and having grown into a full canopy since.
Scientists are sometimes wrong in their assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
despite the fact that surviving the initial blast represents less increased risk of cancer than smoking cigarettes or having a poor diet
Cancer isn't the killer, it's acute radiation poisoning which sterilizes your gonads, destroys your digestive system and reduces or eliminates your ability to create new blood cells.
I guess all of this really depends on the size of the dirty bomb, but at the very least it doesn't take much to make people violently ill.
Re: (Score:2)
No! no! no! no!
Creation "scientists" may conclude that the genes making the plant adoptable to radiation have been wisely designed.... How else could it work.....
Re:Life goes on? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh. "Blindingly obvious" is a silly comment on scientific studies.
Was it blindingly obvious that 9% (rather than 8% or 10%) of proteins would be differently expressed? Was it blindingly obvious that the best working model so far for adaption involves glycinin, beta conglycinin, dehydrins, and glycine betaine?
If these particular outcomes were blindingly obvious to you then you're a kook not a scientist.
If these details don't seem important to you then you're a woolly thinker not a scientist.
Re:Life goes on? (Score:5, Informative)
Realistically, how was this not blindingly obvious?
If you put a bunch of life forms into a high stress environment, evolution is going to happen quickly. Clearly, the gene for radiation resistance is going to quickly become prevalent in a population exposed to large amounts of radiation....
You're dramatically oversimplifying things. They weren't asking "will life adapt to these conditions?" Since they were studying plants that were growing in the area, they knew that much already. It was indeed blindingly obvious, they did all their experiments on the proof. They were instead asking "HOW did this life adapt." A much much more complex question. Turns out it's not one gene, and it's not even genes that can be lumped as "radiation resistance."
The real article abstract(right here [acs.org]) points out that these plants aren't just adapted to one new stress.
That last stress itself is far from obvious, maybe plant experts would have guessed that would be a problem, but for me at least, I wouldn't have guessed that would be a major problem. But apparently it is, and the plants have overcome it. I would have guessed it would all be DNA damage.
It also points out that of nearly 700 analyzed proteins, nearly 10% were expressed at different levels from I guess an uncontaminated stock. Far from one gene, seventy genes, apparently tweaked in just a few generations, not millions of years. Not blindingly obvious that evolution could work that fast on that many genes. At least not to me. I also have to point out, that as of yet they don't seem to have found any evidence that nature had to redesign any of the existing machinery, it seems rather that it just changed the levels of machinery made. That's far from certain, but it doesn't seem like it modified most of those 70 proteins, just the levels.
I'm willing to bet that even though soybeans are an important crop, we don't know all there is to know about their molecular mechanisms of dealing with any of those three problems. And even if we did, we don't know how evolution is going to co-opt these systems to deal with new challenges. So examining the actual pathways will probably tell us a great deal about which proteins are involved in these pathways, if any are being used for new purposes. We might even be able to use something we learn there in human medicine, the new scientist article mentions one of the proteins protects human blood against radiation, if we find that one protein is really critical to helping the plants cope, maybe a drug can be developed that will increase the activity or abundance in that protein to help with radiation poisoning and maybe even help with cancer.
HOW is extremely complicated, and they're just scratching the surface. It's fascinating, though not so much that I'm going to spend 30 dollars to read the article right now.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't see anyone expressing surprise that this happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Either that... or they all die off in short order....
You know, one or the other...
Both are good.
future bias (Score:5, Funny)
What about past interplanetary travelers? Will you not help them? Or are you so biased towards the entropic arrow of time, that you refuse to help those poor interplanetary travelers of the past? You Bastards! How do you sleep at night?
Re: (Score:2)
Crops? Space colonists would want to enhance these proteins in _themselves_. Think of the radiation on Mars. Maybe -- what are the side effects? Inquiring science fiction writers will want to know.
Re: (Score:2)
"How do you sleep at night?"
Last night was ok - don't remember much, really. I look forward to doing it again sometime in the future. Should I worry?
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be interesting, though, to know how difficult it would be to produce human populations with various useful astronaut properties. Unfortunately, most of what you would want to do would involve running right over the medical ethics cliff and into some dubious stuff. You'd pretty much want a bunch of dwarves(transporting mass out of a gravity well is very expensive) with slow metabolisms(ditto) and high radiation tolerance and possibly some sort of Myostatin related mutation [nejm.org] that would allow them to preserve muscle mass in low gravity. I can't think of any sort of genetic engineering or selective breeding that would achieve that end, without getting into rather dubious ground.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdotters have already been selected to survive with extreme sensory deprivation, and muscle atrophy. If they could only be bred ...
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Asgard's problem was that their science extended to other areas, and each of the clones was DRMed to hell and so they couldn't recover the original copies when the servers went offline.
Re: (Score:2)
"bred?! you backwards hick we will be CLONED"
Backwards hick???
Ah shewed this tew Mom an' Uncle Dad.
Yew owe them 'en apology.
We ain't clones, but our family tree is straight as an arrow.
Re: (Score:2)
screw cloning, I'm having my consciousness transferred into a computer (a set of bash scripts to be precised), that way they only need to shield the ram & ssd enclosure!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Donate sperm.
Re: (Score:2)
For God's sake man, are you seriously considering some advanced form of dwarf-tossing? Have you no ethics?
Fixed it for you (Score:1)
Not just in space, either.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be needed planet-side on occasion, as well, since not all planetary bodies we might consider as a home have the same aggressive magnetosphere that our own homeworld does: Mars has no better than a patchwork magnetosphere, and what of our own Moon? If we expect to grow plants in "biodomes" for food and use natural sunlight for photosynthesis, then those plants may have to be adapted to accepting something closer to the full brunt of that radiation than they have to endure on the face of this rather well-shielded marble.
Re:Not just in space, either.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Mars has no better than a patchwork magnetosphere, and what of our own Moon? If we expect to grow plants in "biodomes" for food and use natural sunlight for photosynthesis, then those plants may have to be adapted to accepting something closer to the full brunt of that radiation than they have to endure on the face of this rather well-shielded marble.
One word: Mirrors.
This is mostly applicable to the moon; mars is a different story. Direct lunar sunlight would be bad for plants anyway; it's much more intense than it is here on earth.
So, you make your biodome entirely underground, and use reflective surfaces to direct a portion of the light from above to where the crops are. The light is more diffuse that way, which as mentioned is a good thing, and your plants aren't exposed to as much ionizing radiation.
Of course, how you get through two weeks of lunar night is a separate problem. You'd likely need lamps to provide light for those times.
For martian colonies, the radiation problem is at least reduced by distance, and very slightly attenuated by an atmosphere. You'd likely want plants that can survive on very thin sunlight, or failing that, you'd want to provide artificial light to make up the difference. Unlike the moon, I suspect you'd be alright setting up a dome on the surface without being fried.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Martian surface isn't much more hospitable than the Moon, with respect to radiation. Its atmosphere is of no consequence, but it's really the absence of a magnetosphere that matters. Earth's magnetosphere is really what holds the life-blood of this planet in place, INCLUDING the atmosphere... without it, the solar wind would long ago have stripped our atmosphere away, just as happened to Mars. (That, BTW, is why it's so funny when people muse about terraforming Mars and recreating an atmosphere, beca
Re:Not just in space, either.... (Score:4, Informative)
Martian surface radiation is only 12 REM a year. Higher than standard on earth, but not significantly more than a typical coal miner gets. It's thin and pathetic atmosphere, such as it is, still blocks half the radiation that comes at it, and the radiation is halved again by the planet itself.
And Mars lost its atmosphere primarily because its volcanic activity ceased, and its now unable to replenish what it loses. The same thing would happen to Earth eventually, even if it was slower, without our own volcanoes. A magnetosphere isn't necessary at all, Venus has a very weak magnetosphere, resulting only from its atmosphere's interaction with the background/solar radiation, but it has a much thicker atmosphere.
Re:Not just in space, either.... (Score:5, Informative)
I've seen both explanations for the disparity in atmospheres, and I'm inclined to think both have merit.
Venus has more to separate it than volcanism. Earth, which is its closest neighbour in size, has a moon, and very likely gained it by way of an ancient collision some 3-4 billion years ago. The atmosphere would have been blown away, reforming at a reduced density after the fact. Moreover, it's possible the moon itself may have skimmed off some of the upper atmosphere over hundreds of millions of years. Venus has had no similar events, leading to an atmosphere that's only gotten thicker.
Mars, which is much smaller than either, has two moons, frequent asteroid collisions (though none as violent as the one that led to our moon), and a cooling interior leading to reduced volcanism and the failure of the magnetic field. When it comes to explaining mars' relative lack of air, any of the above could be contributing factors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that it took anywhere from tens to hundreds of thousands of years to strip away the Martian atmosphere - we no more need to recreate a magnetosphere to terraform Mars than I need my own oil well to keep my car running. I just fill 'er up every time my gas tank runs
Shielding? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't order the steak and you'll be fine...
Re: (Score:2)
Although clearly made in jest, that is an excellent point. I think, though, that the idea is that people are mobile and able to compact into a small place, while plants really aren't.
If a bad radiation storm is coming you can have everyone hole up in a small protected compartment, rather than protecting the whole ship, which would be devastating on the weight of the vehicle. However, presumably hydroponics would be fairly large area, and it would be much harder to provide protection for that over a long f
Irradiated Food (Score:2)
Rad-X (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Oblig. (Score:2)
This is proof of the existence of God (Score:2)
Cuz the accident was clearly an act of God intended to demonstrate his intelligent design skills. Must have been, cuz we all know that it couldn't be a natural evolution in response to a changing environment.
I predict that at least 50% of the people reading this will think I'm serious, despite this disclaimer. This is /., after all. (And another 25% will pretend to think that, just for the troll value.)
Re:This is proof of the existence of God (Score:4, Interesting)
I know you're joking, but it's stories like this I want to show genuine creationists. Just to see if they can weasel out of it.
Of course, the ones with half a working brain already preempted the point by imagining a distinction between micro and macro evolution. Note that there is no such distinction in reality, but imagining there is can provide a handy way of dismissing actual evidence of evolution in action. A variant of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
This method is proof that creationist ideas can evolve, which I find deliciously ironic - when subjected to selection pressure, they develop new mechanisms of denial to cope. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
This method is proof that creationist ideas can evolve, which I find deliciously ironic - when subjected to selection pressure, they develop new mechanisms of denial to cope.
Much like the current crop of religions have managed to out-compete older, less fit religions.
Radiation resistant humans . . . (Score:5, Funny)
. . . is the next step in this study, I guess. If we were all radiation resistant, we could ditch fossil fuels and switch to nuclear.
Radioactive waste? I eat it for breakfast.
And my stomach functions as a breeder reactor, so my shit can be used to generate even more power.
Top that.
Re:Radiation resistant humans . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Radioactive waste? I eat it for breakfast.
You really shouldn't be going to Taco Bell that early in the day.
And my stomach functions as a breeder reactor, so my shit can be used to generate even more power.
Does that mean the nearest bathroom goes China syndrome around lunchtime?
Be of Good Cheer~ (Score:2)
Okuu? Is that you?
Ob BBC (Score:2, Informative)
No, seriously. [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:1)
The study, which recorded 1,570 birds from 57 species, found that the number of birds in the most contaminated areas declined by 66% compared with sites that had normal background radiation levels. It also reported a decline of more than 50% in the range of species as radiation levels increase.
While not a desolate wasteland it doesn't sound like paradise.
E-I-E-I-D'OH! (Score:2, Funny)
Not Surprising (Score:2)
Heavy Metal (Score:1)
I knew it, I KNEW IT! Did they name a band?
recreational substances (Score:2)
Anyone care to post whether there is any "beneficial" or adverse effect of long-term radiation exposure on marijuana, 'shrooms, or banana peels? After all, once space travel is in common use, there will, eventually, be ethyl alcohol (none of that synthehol crap, either) and other recreational substances along for the ride.
Maybe that's what the "hemp movement" needs: to show that in addition to rope, clothes, etc. that the plant is a good terraformer for some environment.
now all we need is radiation resistant people (Score:2)
Never mind (Score:2)
At first, I read that as "radiation-resistant pants", which would have been useful.
I guess we could use radiation-resistant fig leafs.
Largest nuclear disaster? (Score:2)