Effects of radiation on insects

Today's events at the Japanese nuclear power plant have excited the whole world.
Entomologists,your opinions, recommendations, forecasts, tips, reports on fishing in the areas
of nuclear landfills and accidents at nuclear power plants.

It is generally believed that the radio sensitivity of arthropods is hundreds (or even thousands) of times lower than that of mammals. The conclusions given in the article from the second link are very doubtful. The presence of a negative correlation between the radiation background and the number of insects can be caused by completely extraneous factors that have nothing to do with radiation. For example, near the Chernobyl sarcophagus, decontamination works were actively carried out at one time, which led to the complete destruction of the biotopes that existed there (the famous "red forest", for example).
I regularly have to go to the Chernobyl zone for work and still have never seen mutants there I still dream, for example, to catch some pigeon-ginandromorph, but I'm not lucky

Changes in biological organisms under the influence of environmental factors are more quickly manifested in species that give the greatest number of new generations in the shortest time intervals.These include bacteria,viruses,and fungi.Some species of insects can produce two generations per year.That is, they are an interesting object for studying the influence of environmental factors on biological species.

Why then do they say that Prussians are not exposed to radiation ?

There are a lot of messages in the mass media now,and often mutually exclusive,diametrically opposed. Today in the news:file Word.doc.
Entomologists and specialists: What are your opinions?

File/s:



 зам_Чернобыля_Microsoft_Word.doc

size: 54k
number of downloads: 518

Fukushima is still far from Chernobyl in terms of scale and consequences. Apparently, at Fukushima, there is a release of gaseous radioactive substances (or dissolved in water). And that's not so bad. At least there is no obvious release of fuel from the reactor (plutonium, uranium isotopes) . Everywhere they write that the radiation background in Fukushima forms iodine-131. It has a half-life of only 8 days. So far, the Japanese are lucky, because there are no emissions of caesium-131,134, strontium-90, transuranic isotopes. This suggests that in Fukushima, at least, the reactors did not blow up, as was the case in Chernobyl. Although the Japanese may hide their true condition.

As for the effect of radiation on biological species, the simpler the organism, the more resistant this species is to radiation. And the rapid change of generations for the species gives only a plus in terms of survival and adaptability.

A very famous "entomologist" was an "eyewitness" to the effects of radiation.
The film "The New Amazons" shows the terrible consequences of an atomic catastrophe on Earth.
People (only women) survive in an underground bunker city.And only two men were
left alive among the city of women.Any man's dream?What did the consequences of the disaster lead to?
By the way, the main character (Pole) of the movie "The New Amazons" is an entomologist.In another film, Deja Vu, he went to Sumatra to catch butterflies."To the simple question "who are you",
naively answered " entomologist, I'm going to Sumatra to catch butterflies."I got shot for it.
Twofold information to think about.

Well, the women in the movie "The New Amazons" are a typical example of radiophobia Outside the bunker, by the way, everything was normal there, as it turned out later, and in "Deja Vu" the gangster disguised himself as an entomologist, yes.
To develop the topic, here are some photo sketches from the 30-km zone of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant:

Pictures:

1chernobyl_soday.jpg — (114.74 k)


2_prevention.jpg — (485.55 k)


3_Payage.jpg — (166.15к)


4 _ Scary _ cemetery_ _ d.Masany_.jpg — (452.5к)


6 _ _ Abandoned_house_ _ d.Masany_.jpg — (130.49к)


7 _ Abandoned_house_ _ book_.jpg — (290.43к)


5_Старый_дуб___убежище_для_L.cervus.jpg — (450.11 k)


8_view_na_colors.jpg — (141.01к)


9_PICT0010_11.jpg — (330.63к)


9_golubyanka.jpg — (351.11к)


10_botna_cherepaha.JPG — (222.07к)


11 _ Reptile _ _ pregnant _ female_.jpg — (381.83к)


12_Усач.јрд — (940.34 k)


13_Усач_2.јрд — (175.43 k)

By the way, there is a rich research experience of the Moscow school of evolutionary genetics, since the 1920s, I think. In the field of radiation influence on the genome.

Where can I view this information?Links?

Where can I view this information?Links?

Babkov V. V. Moscow School of Evolutionary Genetics. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1985, 216 p.

http://dez.ocy.ru/joseph-kunkel/
(see question 5 " Are cockroaches resistant to radiation?")

Sergey, I think you just need to search on the day ))) on the molbiol side. Post a question where the molecular scientists are clustered.

There's a nuclear test site in Nevada.About 900 explosions were carried out across the state.Mostly underground.The photo is interesting:the first shot from a cannon with a nuclear projectile.A mushroom is rising on the horizon, and the soldiers are pointing at it.This is 150 km from Las Vegas, the nearest tests were carried out.In Vegas, a festive audience gathered on the embankment and pleasure steamboats to look at the miracle(a nuclear mushroom at the test site).
Is it scary or dangerous?Or....,?
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear polygon_inevade
Is radiation exposure more dangerous after a nuclear explosion or an accident at a nuclear power plant?

180 km from me Balakovo
Opposite across the Volga around the city of Volsk beautiful forests.
http://saratoff.ru/articles/incidents/0/501

 
Is radiation exposure more dangerous after a nuclear explosion or an accident at a nuclear power plant?

A nuclear charge weighs a dozen kilograms, while the reactor fuel load is tens of tons.
Therefore, if at least some of the fuel escapes from the reactor, the radioactive contamination of the area will be much more serious than in a nuclear explosion. Hypothetically, the strongest radioactive contamination will be when a nuclear bomb hits a nuclear power plant.

[/quote]gundorov posted yesterday, 02: 01

..In another Deja Vu movie, he went to Sumatra to catch butterflies."To the simple question "who are you",
naively answered " entomologist, I'm going to Sumatra to catch butterflies."I got shot for it.
Twofold information to think about.[quote]

No, you can't do that...
This is our prof. Babochkin was shot. And not for the entomologist, but for the fact that
the shooter confused him with a gangster...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deTI8-GqC-g

A nuclear charge weighs a dozen kilograms, while the reactor fuel load is tens of tons.
Therefore, if at least some of the fuel escapes from the reactor, the radioactive contamination of the area will be much more serious than in a nuclear explosion. Hypothetically, the strongest radioactive contamination will be when a nuclear bomb hits a nuclear power plant.

Agree

Anecdote in an interview with Eugene Kaspersky (the creator of the antivirus program) from 06.04.11 in today's news on the topic of Fukushima:
There is even an anecdote on this topic: two planets meet once in space. One is so cheerful, joyful, and the other is sad. Something must be wrong. Veselaya asks: "What are you doing? What happened to you?" Sad replies: "You know, I've got these homo sapiens on me." — Don't worry, they'll pass by themselves!"

Here's more:

Klimpinya A. Ionizing radiation in the fight against harmful insects. Riga: Zinatne Publ., 1971, 132 p.

Japanese pigeons are still covered - see the topic of Pigeons (Lycaenidae).

I got here to read - I didn't find anything new about insects - but I was surprised by some arguments in the technical field.
============================
Romik @ 08.04.2011 00: 37)
A nuclear charge weighs a dozen kg, while the reactor fuel load is tens of tons.
Therefore, if at least some of the fuel escapes from the reactor, the radioactive contamination of the area will be much more serious than in a nuclear explosion. Hypothetically, the strongest radioactive contamination will be when a nuclear bomb hits a nuclear power plant.
==================================
I'm also a complete layman in nuclear affairs, and I don't have time to look for literature, but I remember something like the following from my childhood.
By itself, URANIUM (or PLUTONIUM) - which explodes with radiation-can be simple (it is widely used all over the world in reactors) and enriched (it is used in warheads and is difficult to obtain and "quarantine" material-see how they are shaking that it will end up in Iran, S. Korea).
Simple uranium is periodically loaded into reactors in quantities ranging from several tens of grams (submarine reactors, with a capacity of 15 to 50 thousand hp approximately) to several kg (reactors of large nuclear power plants). Now this frequency is about a year or more.
Its warheads, but ENRICHED, also contain a few grams (tactical projectiles with a capacity of several Kt) or kg (large missiles and bombs with a capacity of hundreds of Kt-but there they initiate a thermonuclear reaction with a capacity of tens of Mt). But there is a CONTROLLED reaction in the reactor - this kg burns for a whole year. And in a bomb-it explodes instantly, with a temperature I don't remember what, but otherwise not achievable. At the same time, powerful electromagnetic radiation is released, including (due to the extreme parameters of the explosive reaction) in the gamma range-this is the worst all - pervading radiation.
If the uranium that was in Chernobyl could explode like a bomb, there would be a large scorched crater, with known destruction in a significant radius. But it just couldn't explode like that, because it's NOT enriched. A heat engine (roughly speaking, a steam boiler) exploded there and led to the release of very slowly smoldering fuel, as well as to the depressurization of the dome and slow radiation into the sky.
That is, the fuel burned as slowly as in the reactor, but already-outside it and with radiation into the atmosphere. Therefore, well-known work was carried out to seal this reactor and search for scattered clots. To say that the release of radiation could be comparable to that in the explosion of a serious bomb (even in 20 Kt, as in Hiroshima, which is not much by current canons), is simply not serious. And the consequences of the explosion, including in terms of radioactive contamination of the area and population, are well known in the example of Hiroshima - not a single industrial accident has led to anything even remotely similar.