"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> Well, it should be noted that 1954, at the time of the film's making, long-time
> effects of radioactivity from nuclear weapon use were still poorly understood
> in public. People were only starting to grasp that there *were* such effects.

These are all early to mid 20th century products.

Radium Ore Revigator.  Preserving all the wonderful benefits of radioactive
drinking water!
   http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Samples/092.8/index.s12.html

User Manual.  Read it and gape:
   http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Samples/092.7/index.s12.html

Death on the breakfast table.  Although the lead in this dish will kill you
before the radiation does.
   http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Samples/092.3/index.s12.html

All-natural, so it must be good for you, right?
   http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Samples/088.2/index.s12.html

> And after all, when it was found out that radioactive fallout causes "genetic
> mutation", this term was probably still more associated with Darvin's "survival
> of the fittest" ideas than genetic defects. This misconception seems to have
> been common those days, see those infamous Godzilla & Co. movies, which were
> obviously bred on the same lack of insight.

They are actually the same thing.  A mutation can enhance or harm an organism's
odds of survival.  As sentient, interested beings, we humans make a
distinction:  we call the former "fitness" and the latter "genetic defects."
However, to the molecules, subatomic particles, and radiation involved, it's
all the same.  As an example, sickle-cell anemia can be either fitness or
defect, depending on the mutant's life circumstance; yet it is the same
mutation.

Most mutations lower the odds of survival.  After all, mutations are random, yet
a functional genetic sequence is a tremendously improbable outcome.  Hence, when
you boost the regional mutation rate by, say, mismanaging a safety test in a
Chernobyl core, a lot of bad things are going to happen to the life forms in
the vicinity.

Note that no office-building-sized lizards have been reported near Chernobyl
(nor office-building-sized humans near Hiroshima, for that matter).  The
vascular, skeletal, and muscular systems of each species are genetically tuned
for the normal scale of that species.  If a mutation caused runaway growth in a
Ukrainian lizard, it would probably die while still considerably smaller than a
frozen turkey.  File as "genetic defect."

(Interestingly, you can find lots of studies and articles about the surprising
proliferation of wildlife in the Chernobyl area.  The pro-nuclear camp cites
these and says, "See, nuclear radiation isn't so bad after all."  But a closer
look reveals that the animals are often in poor health, and the implication
hits you like a fuel rod to the side of the head:  an exploding nuclear pile is
less dangerous to wildlife than the mere presence of human beings!  Oh.

Environmentalists, you've got your work cut out for you.  Extermination of H.
sapiens is not an acceptable option.)

In my country, misconceptions about evolution are the norm.  The problem is
fundamentalist Christian organizations who do not understand the difference
between real evidence and a 3000 book, and who believe that science is a form
of religion.  While they have been spectacularly unsuccessful at forcing their
mythology into our public school biology classes, they have succeeded in
emasculating biology curricula though politics, intimidation, and sophistry.
Most people don't understand what makes science different from religion, and
are thus unequipped to defend science against the sophists.  (It doesn't help
that Texas, of all states, has de facto control over textbook content for the
whole USA.  It also doesn't help when a certain president, coincidentally(?)
from Texas, does not understand why religious mythology doesn't deserve equal
time in science class.)  As a result, while most of our children manage to
escape being taught that Adam & Eve were literally true, few really learn
anything about evolution.

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> (Interestingly, you can find lots of studies and articles about the surprising
> proliferation of wildlife in the Chernobyl area.  The pro-nuclear camp cites
> these and says, "See, nuclear radiation isn't so bad after all."  But a closer
> look reveals that the animals are often in poor health, and the implication
> hits you like a fuel rod to the side of the head:  an exploding nuclear pile is
> less dangerous to wildlife than the mere presence of human beings!  Oh.

Huh, that's an interesting twist...

Then again, "mother nature" has had her own uncontrolled nuclear experiments
long before Chernobyl, for example with that water-moderated natural fission
reactor somewhere in Africa...

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> In my country, misconceptions about evolution are the norm.  The problem is
> fundamentalist Christian organizations who do not understand the difference
> between real evidence and a 3000 book, and who believe that science is a form
> of religion.  While they have been spectacularly unsuccessful at forcing their
> mythology into our public school biology classes, they have succeeded in
> emasculating biology curricula though politics, intimidation, and sophistry.
> Most people don't understand what makes science different from religion, and
> are thus unequipped to defend science against the sophists.

I've been reading Stephen Jay Gould's book, "Bully for Brontosaurus", and he
really lays into this psuedo-scientific clap-trap. Interestingly, he was a
witness in an important science-vs-creationism trial (way back in the 1980's I
think), a case that ultimately led to creationism being removed 'once and for
all' from classrooms. (Based on a 'separation of church and state' issue.) Of
course, that doesn't stop fundamentalist-minded local and regional school
boards from forever trying to reinstate it. Like the infamous incident in
Dover, Maryland.

> (It doesn't help
> that Texas, of all states, has de facto control over textbook content for the
> whole USA.

Is that true?? I don't even have words to express my shock. That's *really*
disturbing. I can't even imagine how that came to be--oh, except through
politics. And a certain ex-President. Duh.

Ken W.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Then again, "mother nature" has had her own uncontrolled nuclear experiments
> long before Chernobyl, for example with that water-moderated natural fission
> reactor somewhere in Africa...

That reaction seemed well-controlled to me.  No moving parts, no meltdown, no
explosion, and non-hazardous on-site storage of spent fuel.  It's been
suggested that we can learn from that incident.

For what it's worth, the reaction ceased about a billion years before
multicellular organisms evolved.  At the time, the upstart cyanobacteria were
still struggling to poison all life on earth with their chemical waste, oxygen.
 Hmmm... nuclear hotbeds, 0; species that decimate everything in their wake, 2.

Post a reply to this message

Has someone mentioned this one:

Phase IV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_IV

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> For what it's worth, the reaction ceased about a billion years before
> multicellular organisms evolved.  At the time, the upstart cyanobacteria were
> still struggling to poison all life on earth with their chemical waste, oxygen.
>  Hmmm... nuclear hotbeds, 0; species that decimate everything in their wake, 2.

The cyanobacteria obviously were unsuccessful: Other species adapted to "eating"
their waste.

Post a reply to this message

Zeke <zek### [at] zeke3dcom> wrote:
> Has someone mentioned this one:
>
> Phase IV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_IV

Good morning! Read the older posts :)

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> [...] a case that ultimately led to creationism being removed 'once and for
> all' from classrooms. (Based on a 'separation of church and state' issue.)

Only from public school science classrooms.  It is fine to teach it in a
comparative religion class in an unbiased fashion, for example.  Of course,
this doesn't work in practice because the people trying to force their religion
into public schools will not tolerate an unbiased presentation.  Private schools
can teach what they want, although the kids still have to pass state
standards--leading Kansas to gut theirs.

> Of
> course, that doesn't stop fundamentalist-minded local and regional school
> boards from forever trying to reinstate it. Like the infamous incident in
> Dover, Maryland.

Dover, Pennsylvania, actually.

> "Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > (It doesn't help
> > that Texas, of all states, has de facto control over textbook content for the
> > whole USA.
>
> Is that true?? I don't even have words to express my shock. That's *really*
> disturbing. I can't even imagine how that came to be--oh, except through
> politics. And a certain ex-President. Duh.

Market veto power.  Texas has the 2nd highest number of school children, and if
Texas won't buy a textbook, the publishers won't print it.  (California has
more school children, but not as strong a religious agenda--although there is
_some_ level of religious agenda, as the voters recently voted to dictate to
other people whom they're allowed to marry.)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:

> > "Phase IV" was an odd film--essentially a documentary about ants, turned into
> > a quasi-doomsday story. Clever conceit, though.
>
> Loosely based on a short story by H.G.Wells as I heard tell, so I'm not too
> surprised about the documentary info regarding ants. After all, he was into
> science-fiction, not science-fantasy.
>

Oops. I may have confused PHASE IV with THE HELLSTROM CHRONICLES--I think
*that's* the one I was referring to. (It's the one I remember, anyway.) I must
have seen PHASE IV at some point as well, but the two films are kind of blended
together in my memory.

KW

Post a reply to this message

Kenneth wrote:
\
> Nope, that's "The Blob." The seminal cheapie 50's monster flick.  I *still*
> can't figure out how they made that blobby creature--AMAZING for its time.
> (This was the first movie that REALLY scared me. Badly. Gave me nightmares for
> years! Oh well, I was just a wee little kid...)
> 
> 
> 


Ahhhh! You are right.

Post a reply to this message