|
 |
"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
|
|
