×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

293 comments

Obligatory... (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670624)


Feed me, Seymour!

Re:Obligatory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671140)

Open wide, bitch.

Re:Obligatory... (4, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671586)

Kind of what I was thinking, but not quite. I was suddenly hearing the song, "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" in my head....

Yes but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670630)

has samzenpus adapted to Rob Malda's cock in his ass?

Wasn't this predicted (4, Interesting)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670632)

in "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind"?

Adapt or die.

Re:Wasn't this predicted (3, Funny)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671040)

Obviously He has made the plants smart enough to make that selection. Intelligent Design and all, you know?

(Ok, going to get modded troll for this or burn in hell.)

Re:Wasn't this predicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671192)

(Ok, going to get modded troll for this or burn in hell.)

Isn't that the same thing?

Re:Wasn't this predicted (1)

Decker-Mage (782424) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671796)

Made me smile! Nothing else to smile about here so I think you should wear your Troll badge with honor.

Re:Wasn't this predicted (2, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671056)

Yeah, and also I remember the number of articles on slashdot about how wildlife was thriving there, which were then totally debunked.

Then, when real research was carried out, wild animals turned out to have shorter lifespans, all kinds of genetic diseases, have smaller litter, more defective offspring and generally be much less healthy than elsewhere.

If I had to bet, I'd bet this new "research" has about as much validity as the brouhaha about the Przhevalsky horses in 2002.

But hey, the sexy chick on the motorcycle was cool.

Re:Wasn't this predicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671160)

I'd rather die than adapt to the one-sentence-per-paragraph writing style they use in the article. Argh!

Re:Wasn't this predicted (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671556)

Not... exactly, but in a way, yes. For a more elaborate explanation, read the manga version of Nausicaa. Or just read it because it rules, like the movie does. :)

Re:Wasn't this predicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671724)

Is that movie any better than Spirited Away? I hated that one and it has kept me from watching the Nausicaa movie.

It's because (5, Funny)

ascari (1400977) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670638)

...they are nuclear plants? [ducks]

Of course life adapts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670664)

In case of nuclear Holocaust, life on Earth will adapt. Plants will grow, new animal species will arise. And Humans will adapt by dying out.

Re:Of course life adapts. (4, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671272)

"And Humans will adapt by dying out."

The many survivors of atomic testing and nuclear attack suggest otherwise.

Re:Of course life adapts. (3, Interesting)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671920)

"What does not kill me, makes me stronger."

"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection"

Nietzsche, Darwin, what's the difference.

captcha abstract (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670678)

na na na na na na na na na na na na
 
BAT VAG! [imageshack.us]

Re:captcha abstract (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670824)

Does this look like 4chan /b/ to you?

No, it does not. This is because it isn't.

Piss off, and try not to get yourself banned with "CP" requests again. Assuming you can ever get into the site again.

u mad (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671172)

y u mad tho?

Aquired Characteristics in Animal Kingdom first. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670688)

I distinctly remembered that people born white in desert(ed) climates (think Michigan) would actually adapt in similar ways: their skin turned black, they developed ignorance, their hair got short and kinky, light barrels of trash on fire to keep warm, and line-up at every line of people leading into a government building to assume free handouts.

Re:Aquired Characteristics in Animal Kingdom first (0, Troll)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670722)

Amazing how a Black President brought so many racists screaming out their shacks and into every forum on the web. I just can't figure out how so many of them found internet connections.

Re:Aquired Characteristics in Animal Kingdom first (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670788)

Wow, I can't tell if you are new here or just retarded. There have been a ton of racists on slashdot long before the black president.

Re:Aquired Characteristics in Animal Kingdom first (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670814)

Wow, I can't tell if you are new here or just retarded. There have been a ton of racists on slashdot long before the black president.

There's plenty of reasons for someone to not like Obama that have nothing to do with the color of his skin, but anyone who speaks out against him is automatically labeled as a racist just to shut them down.

True (0, Offtopic)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671792)

A lot of people are nonracist but don't like his policies or find him ineffective, but those who can't stand his race probably can't stand his policies either. Think "A implies B, but B does not necessarily imply A."

Hmmm that'll do... (5, Funny)

pookemon (909195) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670696)

From TFA - "Scientists had to wear masks, goggles and gloves to work in the area"

Meanwhile the remainder of their body was burnt to a crisp by the radioactivity. Masks, goggles and gloves? This experiment was presumably organised by someone from the Simpsons... (My eyes - the goggles do nothing!)

Re:Hmmm that'll do... (1)

blai (1380673) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670846)

It doesn't mean you wear nothing else.

Re:Hmmm that'll do... (3, Informative)

pookemon (909195) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671270)

Yeah - you should probably RTFA - that quote was from a caption of a picture showing the scientists wearing normal clothes, masks, goggles and gloves. None of which would do anything against radioactivity.

Re:Hmmm that'll do... (5, Informative)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671406)

Actually, they would do something.

Primarily they would prevent the accidental ingestion of alpha particle emitters. Shit like polonium like the Russians used on that reporter a few years ago. They're normally harmless, your dead skin cells will stop the alpha particles, but [deity] help you if you ingest them.

The background radiation levels are easily measurable and it's pretty easy to calculate how long someone should reasonable stay in an area unprotected. I would wager that these scientists actually know something about science, and were mainly concerned with ingesting alpha emitters, not absorbing gamma rays.

Re:Hmmm that'll do... (5, Insightful)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670890)

Probably the point is not so much to shield radiation, but to reduce / prevent direct contact, or (worse) ingestion of radioactive material. Depending on conditions & duration of the job, masks, goggles & gloves may just be adequate.

Re:Hmmm that'll do... (5, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671562)

Probably the point is not so much to shield radiation, but to reduce / prevent direct contact, or (worse) ingestion of radioactive material. Depending on conditions & duration of the job, masks, goggles & gloves may just be adequate.

Right. The key is to limit exposure to the precise amount where you don't die, but do gain superpowers.

These scientists know what they're doing.

Re:Hmmm that'll do... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671720)

I'll remember that. It seems that 3M filter-lite paint masks, medical gloves, and welders glasses are okie!

Re:Hmmm that'll do... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670908)

Depends on the type and strength of radiation present. If it's mostly alpha particles then it will be blocked by your skin, but they can still penetrate mucous membranes (like in the nose and around the eyes) or be inhaled and absorbed through the lungs.

There is also the inverse square law, standing several feet away from a lightly radioactive source is going to be less hazardous than handling it with your bare hands. Hence the gloves.

Re:Hmmm that'll do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670978)

The scientists wore shoes, socks, pants, underwear, shirts, TLDR

Re:Hmmm that'll do... (3, Informative)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671294)

Radiation isn't the only problem. Uranium is toxic even without its radioactivity. I suspect that there are a bunch of other byproducts of a reactor explosion that are just as bad.

Re:Hmmm that'll do... (2, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671362)

Ah, the typical reaction to to the word "radioactivity."

Most areas around Chernobyl are pretty harmlessly radioactive unless you a) spend a long time there or b) get some of the radioactive stuff on or in you and it sticks with you for an extended period of time.

Cyanide is pretty deadly stuff too, but only if you ingest it.

Re:Hmmm that'll do... (1)

SimonInOz (579741) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671612)

>> harmlessly radioactive unless you a) spend a long time there or b) get some of the radioactive stuff on or in you and it sticks with you for an extended period of time.

You mean like, oh, I don't know, a plant, maybe?

Re:Hmmm that'll do... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671658)

Yes. Although plants have quite a few advantages over us where it comes to tolerating radiation.

And in a related story... (1)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670702)

...the cockroach population is also thriving.

Re:And in a related story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671542)

Roach state of the population address:

"My fellow cockroaches, today we are thriving like never before! Once we were ordinary roaches. Now we are larger than the largest Madagascar hissing cockroaches that ever crawled on the surface of the Earth. And our scientists predict that some of our descendants will reach lengths of up to 50 feet! No more will humans stomp on us! Soon, we will stomp on them!

I must report, however, that we have a slight 'next door neighbor' problem. The ants in this area have also absorbed radiation, and they are already 20 feet long and growing. Gentlemen, while stomping humans into extinction will be a fun pastime, the real issue is how to cope with THEM."

Dust masks, sunglasses and latex gloves? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670734)

I'm just glad they took all the proper precautions to protect themselves against radiation. My only concern is that they didn't use duct tape around the arms and legs to keep that nasty radiation from crawling up their limbs.

Great... (3, Funny)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670764)

Now eat that plant... See what happens. Maybe you get 'immune' maybe you don't :P

And this is stunning because.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670790)

Did all the plants die off after Chernobyl? Maybe that happened but I don't remember that story.

Who is to say that plants like these are affected as much by radiation? They are simpler organisms, have much shorter lifespans, and obviously quite different from mammals.

Would I be surprised if moss or algae were unaffected by higher doses of radiation? no.

Also seems like this is an old story (May 2009)

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/05/15-02.html

Cool, but old news. (4, Interesting)

dcposch (1438157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670796)

Yes, evolution is alive and well. A species of bacteria evolved in the early 70s that can digest nylon [wikipedia.org].

I think this news is a nice reality check on that annoying but vocal cadre of environmentalists that are always predicting some kind of terrible apocalypse within the next couple of decades. Global cooling [wikipedia.org], for example. Not to mention a nifty "myth busted" moment for that old Hollywood trope of a post-nuclear wasteland.

I'm definitely not saying we shouldn't take care of our environment, by the way, and I'm certainly not an AGW denialist. The specific way things are now matters a lot to us fickle and fragile humans. If the sea level rises by another yard, the crabs will just move. The Venetians are the ones that would be screwed.

I'm just saying that nature is more resilient than people usually imagine.

Yep, evolution can be really fast (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671088)

Under the right circumstances, evolution can be quite fast. The geological history of the earth shows many massive die-offs followed by a tremendous flowering of new life forms. If there is an ecological niche available, something will adapt/evolve to fill it.

Naturally, simpler life forms evolve faster than complex ones. Germs evolve in months. Humans evolve in tens of millennia. Plants are somewhere between the two.

Re:Yep, evolution can be really fast (2, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671756)

Better let the polar bears know, because it only took them 5-10k years to adapt. That's pretty quick in geologic time.

Re:Cool, but old news. (0)

lewiley (1620203) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671090)

An interesting thing is that plants have adapted, but the people of Chernobyl have been dying mostly of AIDS, not from the radiation.

Re:Cool, but old news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671600)

Nature is robust and resilient. Individual human beings are not. Evolution works by killing off species that can't take that radiation, new species keep getting born and dying, until eventually some emerge that survive. Can humans afford that kind of evolution? No.

Re:Cool, but old news. (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671646)

you might want to ask people from ukraine and belarus how fascinating it is to experience natural, that is, artificial selection in first person.

And TFS speaks about surrounding soil: the explosion affected quite a large area. Strangely enough no alarm was raised until at least the day after the cloud came to our area (NE italy). Living few kilometers from the iron curtain in a (then) densely militarized zone one would have assumed that NBC monitoring was done in order to prevent attacks from the (then) bad commies.

Re:Cool, but old news. (1)

Wannabe Code Monkey (638617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671902)

I think this news is a nice reality check on that annoying but vocal cadre of environmentalists that are always predicting some kind of terrible apocalypse within the next couple of decades. Global cooling, for example.

Come on, did you even read the article you linked?

[Global cooling] gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles

Not to mention a nifty "myth busted" moment for that old Hollywood trope of a post-nuclear wasteland.

Again... must I say come on? Are you really comparing a relatively isolated nuclear accident at a single power plant to the use of hundreds of nuclear weapons across the globe?

Re:Cool, but old news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671926)

Honest question...

What does the A in AGW stand for?
(A??? Global Warming)

BBC, wtf? (1)

yankpop (931224) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670804)

I usually consider the BBC to be both a reliable source of info, and capable of quality reporting. I don't doubt the info in this case, but was the article written by monkeys? Or has the distinction between a paragraph and a sentence been deprecated?

I was under the impression that the English are generally more literate than your average North American, seeing as they invented the language and all. But this article is awful.

Re:BBC, wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670858)

The elite grammar manipulators have been decimated to the last man.

Re:BBC, wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671048)

I usually consider the BBC to be both a reliable source of info, and capable of quality reporting. I don't doubt the info in this case, but was the article written by monkeys? Or has the distinction between a paragraph and a sentence been deprecated?

The article was written by a piece of radioactive Tarragon. Considering the circumstances, I think it did quite well.

Re:BBC, wtf? (1)

Grim Leaper (442986) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671178)

The ABC's NewsMail often includes stories like this, with lots of one-sentence paragraphs. I'm pretty sure this is what you get when you publish an unedited TV/radio script as if it were a news article.

Re:BBC, wtf? (2, Informative)

mejogid (1575619) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671184)

This is how the BBC reports online - single sentence 'paragraphs' under headings that are closer to where you'd really divide paragraphs. I'm not sure why you're so outraged, news reports in general use short paragraphs and fragments. The NY Times, for example, frequently uses single sentence paragraphs.

It makes articles easier to skim and ensures a consistent style between journalists, I'm not sure what your issue with it is.

Re:BBC, wtf? (1)

yankpop (931224) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671520)

It's not just the single sentence paragraphs, but also the near total lack of flow to the text. It reads like bullet points scraped off a powerpoint. I hadn't noticed how short the NYTimes paragraphs were, mostly because there's still some craft to the prose. The NYT still reads like it was meant to be read by literate humans, not parsed by a computer.

To each his own, I guess.

Re:BBC, wtf? (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671676)

if you know anything about english history you would know that many of the words as spoken today were not invented but forced upon the people by invaders of the gray clouded isle.

Day Of The Triffids! (4, Funny)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670920)

Scientist: Wow! They're thriving!

Plant: (Yeah, that's right b*tch. You better believe it.)

*weeks pass*

Plant: (Eat me. Go on, you know you want to? Look at my lovely leaves, my beautiful drupes. I'm tasty. You KNOW I am. Eat me, human.)

Scientist: Hmmmm...I wonder...

Plant: (That's right, baby. Oh yesssss...verrry good.)

Re:Day Of The Triffids! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33670994)

You're a sack of garbage you fucking motherfucker fucking fuck.

Mother nature (2, Insightful)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 3 years ago | (#33670948)

Amazing how mother nature always seems to adapt to whatever man throws at it. And people still continue to say we can blow up the world. Earth took hits from asteroids, wiped out the critters, adapted, evolved and moved on. Same thing with any pollution.

Re:Mother nature (3, Insightful)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671146)

Key point : Pollution affects Humans too. If you are interested in there being human beings around in the future you need to either, A) Get us off planet to other colonies or B) preserve the "colony" we have. There may be some other creature that evolves with our capacity for abstraction and application of abstraction (i.e. engineering) on Earth. However if you believe that intelligence like ours is rare in the Universe and also believe it is worthwhile, then we need to handle Earth a little better or start funding Nasa with our cigarette and booze money. Budget Comparison to Consumer Expenditures [richardb.us] and SpaceReview [thespacereview.com].

Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (2, Informative)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671060)

Troll Alert : It boggles my mind why people still don't accept evolution as being a close approximation of the truth. I say "close approximation" because even physics is an abstract collection of ideas meant to help our human minds approximate physical laws of our Universe. As a species have had numerous examples of evidence be observed or deduced which support evolution. There is observed evidence, as in this case of plants near Chernobyl as well as others like the peppered moth, and qualitative evidence paired with analysis such as in the case of the varied forms of archaeology. These plants represent a micro-evolutionary step, as some people refer to it. Macroevolution(tau) = Microevolution(100000*t) . Differentiation within a species given enough time diverges the species into parts. Simply put, give it enough time and micro-evolution becomes macro-evolution. If you have some math background you will also deduce my other point; no matter what you call it its evolution.

Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (-1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671132)

I don't see why people get all riled up about Creationism/Evolution. They're two completely different concepts.

Creationism says how things began.
Evolution says how things change.
There's no conflict between the two.

Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671198)

By that logic, Creationism = Big Bang Theory. Creationism typically means the belief that God created species as they are and they persisted to today with minor changes. That being said, I applaud your separation of religion from Evolution.

Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671346)

I don't think he's separating them, just saying that they don't have to conflict with each other. The 'earth was created 6000 years ago' isn't the only creationist belief[1] out there, it's just that those nutjobs are the loudest and get upset every time a fossil is discovered. A more reasonable belief would be that God set the initial parameters of the universe to make things happen the way they do, with evolution of the species being the eventual result. I don't believe it myself but it sounds a lot more reasonable than taking Genesis as the literal word of God. It's not like Genesis could have explained the Big Bang Theory and Evolution in a way that would have made sense 2000 years ago anyway.

[1] i say belief, not theory, because it's not testable in any scientific sense - any evidence to the contrary is just handwaved away with 'but that's only because God made it look that way'

Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (1)

Mogster (459037) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671404)

By that logic, Creationism = Big Bang Theory.

I would suggest splitting Creationism into two parts
1) Initial creation
2) Flora, Fauna, etc created as they are today

The first part can fit nicely into the theory of Evolution - belief dependent of course

One of the early pioneers of the Big Bang theory was also a Catholic Priest. Georges_Lemaitre [wikipedia.org]

And before someone else brings it up there is also 'Intelligent Design'. However I can't speak for that as I'm not overly familiar with the tenants of its proponents and am not in the mood for a flamewar :-)

Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671560)

> By that logic, Creationism = Big Bang Theory

Only if we adopt a narrow perspective.

Creating the universe = creating all that is, time included, physical constants included. An eternal universe can be object of a creator. The big bang is just a theory on how big celestial masses move around. A complex fascinating maybe wrong theory, I don't want to downplay the work of scientists, but that doesn't give anybody a free pass in making wrong logical assumptions.

Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671774)

By that logic, Creationism = Big Bang Theory.

Creationism is a popular comedy show on TV?

Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671224)

For starters, Creationism is usually quoted with the Earth's actual age as around 6000 years, give or take a begat or two.

This isn't the same as Quantum Theory and the Special Theory of Relativity, where we can use one in some circumstances, the other in some circumstances, and just pretend they don't agree with other yet work. A closer analog would be to use Quantum Theory for some circumstances, and a Ouija board for others. (Not to offend, but the scientific evidence for both Ouija and religion is about the same, zero.) What ever someone believes is fine, but they are polar opposite concepts that are not reconcilable.

Religion is about accepting that a group of "facts" (bible) is right with no physical proof, and the leadership objects when someone doubts or questions the accuracy of the "facts".

Science tries to prove that a "fact" (theory) is wrong and the leadership REQUIRES doubt and questions be testable before accepting as "fact".

Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (2, Informative)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671258)

There is such a thing as "long day creationism". God may have created the universe over billions of years. The same Hebrew word "day" in Genesis is used in other parts of scripture to mean "ages" or "indefinite amount of time". There is no where in the Bible that says the world is only 6000 years old. That number is simply assumptions some random priest made hundreds of years ago, there's no reason why he must be correct, and I believe he is wrong. I have an article with more detail here. [goodnewsjim.com]

Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671390)

To add to that point, the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day. It's kinda hard to have solar days without a sun.

Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671380)

Religion is about accepting that a group of "facts" (bible) is right with no physical proof, and the leadership objects when someone doubts or questions the accuracy of the "facts".

Beware of confusing the word "religion" with a specific religion that you don't like.

Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671914)

Beware of confusing the word "religion" with a specific religion that you don't like.

It's not that I dislike any one religion. I dislike the concept of religion itself.

I've yet to encounter a religion that didn't require certain "Facts" be taken on nothing but "Faith"
In fact, the definition of religion is : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Faith is the unquestioning belief in something. If you doubt something a religion tells you then you are "Testing your Faith".
Some religions support and encourage this testing, but most simple pretend to while training members/believers to base their doubts on false assumptions or other "Faith" based thoughts.

My personal feelings, and those of many other logically-minded people, are that God might exist, but I have no proof that He does or does not. The suggestion that I should "take it on Faith" is abhorrent to me. If you can't offer evidence one way or the other, then there is no basis for debate.

Even if you talk to some of the most level headed self proclaimed "Religious People", there is always a point in there logic which will be based on the assumption that there is a god. If you ask them to actively consider their own arguments while assuming that god doesn't exist, they can't.

Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671512)

In fact the Genesis said "the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being".

Since "life" in the bible does not refer simply to a heart beating, see "the book of life", I think the passage means, for believers, that man have an earthly origin plus something (divine/spiritual) instilled by God.

Does not contradict Darwin's theories. It contradicts those who use Darwin as propaganda to theorize a mechanic godless world.
Problem is, you don't need darwin to be atheist because God doesn't currently show up and if something godlike did there is no way for a trascendent god to prove itself in an immanent world. You cannot distinguish the root admin from a guy stealing the root password by looking at the logs.

I think the debate between creationism and darwinism is a waste of energy.

Re:Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671564)

I am God. I am posting as Anonymous Coward because if you knew My True Name your little ears would bleed.

I created the animals. Then *I* put the fossils in the earth to lead the unbelievers astray. The Earth is actually only 6 days old. You may think that you can remember back to that time in high school with that girl, and that time you jammed your finger, and that time you spilled your drink in the restaurant. I put that memory in your head. The world is 6 days old. The world is always 6 days old. There is no such thing as consciousness. It is an illusion that I created to amuse Myself. The Universe is 87 days old. The Earth is 6 days old. Do not forget that. Take My Word as Gospel, for that is what It is.

You are mistaken (5, Informative)

pikine (771084) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671250)

Read their method.

They first observe that plants start to spontaneously grow again in contamination sites despite the high radioactivity. Then they brought in seeds from uncontaminated origin. One batch goes to the contamination site, and another batch (the controlled group) goes to a decontaminated area near the site. Seeds grow fine in both batches, showing that seeds from uncontaminated origin is able to survive the radioactivity in the very first generation. The study is about the mechanism how plants naturally resist radioactivity. No evolution is taking place here.

Re:You are mistaken (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671866)

Also, how bad can the radioactivity be if they can be in there with home depot face masks and some thin gloves? Certainly not enough to do any immediate damage to plants...

And now the good news (0, Offtopic)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671152)

This is great news for the gaming industry. Now we have an actual analog to assist in making games like the Fallout series more realistic. Under normal circumstances, society would frown on creating a nuclear accident just to make video games more realistic, so it fortunate that it occurred when it did, with enough time passing for plants to adapt. Thank you Russia.

The lead photograph for the article looks *EXACTLY* like what you would expect in a game like Fallout 3 (my current love). A baby doll sitting next to a gas mask, on a concrete floor, next to a bombed out looking window with dead plants outside in the brightly lit sun. 100% video game shot.

ya but... (1)

Maglos (667167) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671186)

What does this mean for the next Fallout? I don't think it will have the same appeal if it's forested.

The kids aren't all right. (3, Insightful)

SoupIsGood Food (1179) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671262)

Coupl'a things -

1) Chernobyl is not over, and not contained. The "sarcophagus" was temporary at best, is crumbling now, and it's permanent replacement has been beset by budgetary, engineering and political issues that seem irresolvable.

2) Apart from 6' trout and 10' catfish, wildlife around Chernobyl and Pripyat is absolutely not doing well. Excepting a few migratory songbirds, the place is eerily silent.

3) But it's OK, because a few plant species turn out to be radiation-tolerant?

No, not OK. I'm not against nuclear power wholesale, but maybe we should be taking a long, hard look at pebble-bed, 4S and thorium reactors?

Re:The kids aren't all right. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671826)

I hate to tell you but 10' catfish aren't that uncommon. Go check the noodling sites sometime and you'll find plenty that are over 8 foot long in populated areas where rednecks eat catfish and a fair number of well documented 10 footers too. Put those same catfish in areas where the rednecks would be afraid to eat them or even use the waterways for transport and guess what you'd find? These things would thrive in the right conditions. Even 6 foot trout are known outside of radioactively contaminated areas.

People are living and farming within 20 miles of the plant and there is a known substantial population of elk, deer, wolf, fox and others in the so-called dead zone and they've been there for years. I'm not saying it's safe or even that it's tolerable but it is happening.

You might know enough to sound a little learned when it comes to reactors but it's nothing that anyone else here couldn't have figured out for themselves in 10 minutes using Google. What you clearly don't know about is the fact that you're dead wrong about Prypiat and it's current ecosystem.

Let me get out my copy of Gamma World (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671356)

I'm going to roll up some random mutations...

Maybe I'll get Leech Seed.

Plant vs. Human evolution (1)

tengeta (1594989) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671392)

Its rather likely that plants have had to deal with huge amounts of radiation in the past, they have survived extinction events with far more numbers than creatures have so chances are they can deal with radiation better than we can dream of.

Re:Plant vs. Human evolution (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671898)

There aren't many natural sources of substantial radiation, unless you go digging up and concentrating the relevant elements or go far enough back in earth's history that plants hadn't been invented yet. There is virtually no call for the adaptation of radiation resistance, outside of a few man made regions.

However, as it happens, the biochemical adaptations required to survive severe dessication or extreme heat(which, like radiation, pretty much go all bull-in-a-china-shop on your genome and metabolically important molecules) happen to, in a number of cases, be pretty useful in radiation resistance as well. Bacteria like d. radiodurans, t. gammatolerans, and organisms like tardigrades are extremely radiation resistant; but as a side effect of their adaptations to heat and dessication.

Given the survival value, particularly for seeds, of being able to survive hard times and then germinate, or aggressively seize territory(and light) left open by forest fires, it wouldn't be a total surprise if plants had picked up a few adaptations in the same vein...

No predator(s)? (3, Interesting)

An anonymous Frank (559486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671410)

Could it be that whatever fauna that survived, adapted and/or now thrives might do so under conditions perhaps harsher due to radiation, yet plausibly improved by a potentially reduced presence of any predator species, whom may not have fared as well, or may have been displaced?

If I hear ... (0, Redundant)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671422)

... any plants saying, "Feed me, Seymour!" in Russian, I'm leaving.

And even neater... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671464)

And even neater is the plants glow in the dark! It's REALLY pretty!

Holy Radioactive Zombie Darwin (-1, Troll)

nanoakron (234907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671616)

Texas school board, say hello to a little thing called 'Natural Selection'...

The plants are thriving (4, Funny)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33671642)

They were all active that day, talking about the weather, gossiping, and walking around. And right before the scientists and researchers drove in to the site, one of the plants yelled "CAR!" and they all stood still.

I can't resist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33671884)

I for one welcome our new radioactive plant overlords.

in Soviet Overlordsville(?!), plant radiates you

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...