Fukushima's Genetic Legacy: Japan's butterflies abnormal or dying.

Radioactive fallout from Fukushima nuclear meltdowns caused abnormalities in Japan's butterflies

Radioactive fallout from the nuclear disaster in Fukushima Prefecture created abnormalities among the nation's butterflies, according to a team of researchers.

"We conclude that artificial radionuclides from the Fukushima (No. 1) nuclear power plant caused physiological and genetic damage" to pale grass blue butterflies, a common species in Japan, a recent article in Scientific Reports, one of on-line journals of the Nature Publishing Group, said.

Radiation exposure harmed butterflies' genes, and the damage could well be passed on to future generations, the article stated.

The article continues:

The researchers collected 121 adult pale grass blue butterflies in and outside Fukushima Prefecture in May 2011, two months after the nuclear crisis started.

Abnormalities such as unusually small wings were found in 12 percent of the total. But the rate rose to 18 percent in a second generation produced through mating among the butterflies collected and some even died before reaching adulthood.

When second generation butterflies with abnormal traits mated with healthy ones, the rate of abnormalities rose to 34 percent in the third generation, according to the article.

The team collected another 238 butterflies last September and determined that the abnormality rate stood at 28 percent. However, it nearly doubled to 52 percent among a second generation born to the original butterflies caught.

Not good. Not good at all.

This mess is far from over.

Someone should tell the MSM that.

reply to post by loam


Very bad news.
Butterfly populations are one of the major indicators of problems in an environment.
I wonder if any damage has been noticed in the lichens as they too are an early indicator something is wrong if they begin to die off.

They should have evacuated Northern Japan in the the days after the quake IMO.

We have all seen the giger counter readings by now,many times higher than the "safe limit",all around the Fukushima area and far beyond.

This subject encapsulates exactly how much a goverenment really cares about its population,and it makes me feel sick to this day.
Poor people of Japan should have been treated better.

What a disgrace that power companies are deemed to be worth more than the population,and future generations of a country.

That's really sad.
I just hope they aren't morphing into radioactive Mosquitos or something.

poor butterflys i feel so bad...

im glad they came out and said it... not like the msm that reported a few weeks back on fish having gruesome skin disorders, they said it was uv radiation. seriously UV Radiation. the fish developed skin cancer. lol
anything but the truth aye?

MOTHRA!!! Sorry couldn't help it!

So is this a real butterfly effect...

A bit off topic, has anyone seen or heard of genetic abnormalities in human babies being born now? It will be alot of years before we see the second generation coming from the babies being born now.

ADD:

95% of worms die, survivors grow 10 times average size when raised on Tokyo soil contaminated with Fukushima radioactive material




reply to post by tinker9917

Originally posted by tinker9917
A bit off topic, has anyone seen or heard of genetic abnormalities in human babies being born now? It will be alot of years before we see the second generation coming from the babies being born now.

That is next. I am quite certain of it.

Animals mutating you say? I'm flying there right now and bringing my turtles and pet rat.

It looks like this thread was slid to the back so no one can see it, flag it and star it .

People do not know whats going on in japan, most are to afraid to even speak of it and some are just oblivious. Just look at the Japan forum, hardly any news.

NBC News: Study: Japan nuclear disaster caused mutated butterflies

worldnews.nbcnews.com...

"But since we've seen these effects on butterflies, it’s easy to imagine that it would also have affected other species as well. It’s pretty clear that something has gone wrong with the ecosystem,” he said.

Yes, a massive nuclear disaster the size the world has never seen has gone off and we are scratching our arses saying "hmm, I wonder what has gone wrong".

Actually…
This will extremely good for Wildlife. Evolution depends on mutations, and the more there are, the more quickly evolution can adapt to things like coal pollution & climate change. Evolution normally gets the mutations it needs from natural radiation, but Chernobyl has shown it can thrive on levels many thousands of times higher later.

Of course if there radiation levels are so high, that things mutate more often than breed successfully & normally, then it is bad news. So far the Japanese population is growing, and I suspect (with the new human free exclusion zone) so too will the butterfly pollution.

As usual the paranoid monkey’s here don’t know what they are talking about. As usual I have a source to direct you with…

See life in the Chernobyl Zone
www.youtube.com...

Chernobyl was very positive for wildlife, mark my words, the same will be true of Fukushima. Do not the propaganda of the anti-nuclear lot (who only this time last year were making out Fukushima threatened the continuation of life on Earth deceive you) -well do, only if you want to!!!

This is not the full story: Different species are effected by radiation differently, and it was noted during the early stages of Chernobyl that birds with colour are more likely to die than those without it (it turned out that chemicals needed for colour feathers, also had anti cancer properties when not used in feathers, but rather the body). However since then the wildlife in Chernobyl zone has been rapidly adjusting.
Humans have extremely long lives (compared with most species), and we are therefore more susceptible than butterflies to radiation (because we live longer) also we are likely to mutate than wildlife, because we move away. However for things like insects, Fukushima has created a semi-permanent wildlife zone, and this will (actually) mirror the positive ecological story Chernobyl gave the wild world –so be it, not the human one!

reply to post by Liberal1984


Hummm...

What are you trying to convey exactly?

That messing with our environment without actually knowing the consequences is a good thing? Or that we should just start to blow radioactive crap all over the place in order to make stuff mutate and adapt to a #ty world?

There is nothing positive about Chernobyl, a entire city vanished, lots of people died and had their lives changed forever in a really bad way. And as a bonus it messed with the environment without need. There is no point in your argument that can be seen in a positive light.

Of course nature can adapt and find ways to thrive in the worst possible scenarios. But just because it can, it doesn't mean that it's ok for us to keep polluting and messing with stuff that we depend on.

Thomas_ That messing with our environment without actually knowing the consequences is a good thing?

No but:

ScienceDaily (Apr. 10, 2012) — Radiation from the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents may not have been as harmful to wildlife as previously thought. www.sciencedaily.com...

Furthermore: Radioactivity certainly has positive consequences for the rate of evolution, and (by keeping people out of an area) can turn areas into much better places for wildlife, than they ever were with people living there.
You assert we don’t know, but actually Chernobyl and other accidents happened long ago enough, to give us a very accurate idea of the situation there for years to come, and for Fukushima.

But that’s not the case. The zone is teeming with wildlife. Marsh land that was drained under Stalin is returning to marsh. Beavers, boars, bison and deer are returning in large numbers. So are wolves. And even wild horses. The zone is lush, wet, green and jam-packed with life. There are no humans around. georgedonnelly.com...

Or that we should just start to blow radioactive crap all over the place in order to make stuff mutate and adapt to a #ty world?

No! That would be a bad idea, because (being a person) I believe the world should be run for people, and therefore if we are to have wildlife zones, then they should be placed in controlled way, without radioactivity. But (as it happens) the truth is that without Chernobyl or Fukushima wildlife would not have two extra uncontaminated wildlife zones, but would simply have two less.

My point is that although Chernobyl and Fukushima have been extremely bad things for people, it is not factually correct either, to pretend there nothing positive about them.
The Chernobyl is now actually teaming with wildlife, and (if you’re scientifically informed) you can bet your socks that if there any evolutionary changes are needed for wildlife, in that area of the world (resulting from climate change, or other things) then most of the mutations needed will originate in that area, and furthermore without the radioactivity many beneficial advancements would not have happened at all. There are some questions though…

In other words, new animals could actually be in the making here. The area has become a laboratory of microevolution—"very rapid evolution," says Igor—but no one knows what will emerge or when.
One Stanford scientist I spoke to later had a terse summary: if there are genetic changes, and if these pass down to the next generation, and if they survive natural selection, then it's reasonable to talk of evolution. There are two theories about why this may happen. In classic Darwinism, random genetic changes that help an organism survive in its environment are naturally selected through generations, because the individuals with those characteristics do better. But "mutagenesis," an alternate theory, posits that organisms deliberately adapt to their surroundings. The process is not accidental. For example, in Chernobyl, if mice are developing radiation resistance by passing down cell-repair systems, is that because some individuals just happened to develop this attribute and to fare better, or is it because the species deliberately developed this capacity in response to the environment? www.outsideonline.com...

reply to post by Liberal1984


Most reputable geneticists and biogenetictists agree that 99% of all mutations are deleterious and do not contribute to the genome, in fact they degrade it. A few who are proposing the idea of mutagenesis are still on the fringes of science because they haven't been able to accurately get these mutations to show beneficially over several generations. One of the reasons for this push is the idea that evolution is based on random mutations however noone has been able to significantly replicate the model. Radiation is showing to be not a great vehicle for introducing variability in the gene pool because mutations in the reproduction necessary for this transmission tend to kill the host. There have been many bogus and unscientific reports in the MSM trying to get people to come around to the idea of beneficial radiation to advance the nuke agenda and brainwash people even more that "radiation is good", and it's simply not - for animals, plants or humans.

Rapid growth and large growth is a mutagenic EFFECT of radiation, not an adaptative response. Chernobyl is not a healthy biozone which would normally show healthy reproduction and diversity across animals and plants. IT DOES NOT. Some plants have faired better and in a now less competitive environment have an advantage. THOSE plants may be thriving, but all the dead, mutated and non-reproductive ones are not.

Please join us tonight on ATS LIVE RADIO where we will be discussing this topic as a Turbo Topic! Please visit THIS THREAD for the schedule of topics!

We would love to have you call in and voice your opinion regardless of what it is!

ATS Live Is Broadcasting * Today @ 9:00 PM EST

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Sorry I missed it, will catch the replay.

Cheers
WW

Oh Loam, I am linked to this thread through your latest, I am just sick about what we have done to our planet. I take my cues from and respect all the insects here on my 5 acres. I have raised my 3 boys to be good stewards of nature as well. I guess what I am saying is that everything fits so perfectly together and yet when one species suffers we all do.

In the article it states the wings are first to show the mutations and I was thinking about the threads where children are being born with similar deformities in recent war torn nations like Afghanistan.

Are we to become slithering insectiod worms as well in the future?

Wertwog Most reputable geneticists and biogenetictists agree that 99% of all mutations are deleterious and do not contribute to the genome, in fact they degrade it.

This is true, and is to be expected (in nature most mutations also aren’t useful) however it’s the last 1% (or less) evolution permanently benefits from.

A few who are proposing the idea of mutagenesis are still on the fringes of science because they haven't been able to accurately get these mutations to show beneficially over several generations.

Not at all!

Evolution absolutely depends on mutations because this is the only way that new alleles and new regulatory regions are created. users.rcn.com...

I mean how else would anything evolve original change? And (if) you deny evolution, then I'm afraid it’s you who is "on the fringes of science".
Selective breeding and generic modification are indeed more reliable ways of ensuring scientists get whatever they seek, and so it’s for that reason, this is where efforts are mostly focused.

Radiation is showing to be not a great vehicle for introducing variability in the gene pool because mutations in the reproduction necessary for this transmission tend to kill the host.

Two things: A. The shorter a creatures natural lifespan, the less likely it is to be effected by radiation. This means most animals can survive environments far more radioactive than us humans (since today we’re scheduled to live over 80 years).

B. The faster it reproduces, the faster any benefits are passed on. Butterflies will be the least effected, and quickest to pass on any changes. Whilst most changes are at first negative, those that are, will in time die-out. This can only be accelerated by the fact radioactivity is unevenly distributed, so a species pollution suffering in highly radioactive area will still have a healthy gene pool “topping” itself up. Whilst both populations will pass negative effects several generations or more, the fact negative changes are (in evolutionary terms) negative, also means they die-out.

There have been many bogus and unscientific reports in the MSM trying to get people to come around to the idea of beneficial radiation to advance the nuke agenda and brainwash people even more that "radiation is good", and it's simply not - for animals, plants or humans.

I’ve not heard of such a strategy, and it would self-evidently be in vein anyway, since (even if people could still believe radiation was beneficial, and did therefore seek to be irradiated) I think you’ll discover they'll always want a controlled dose, over an uncontrolled one!

Furthermore (I) found everything about your Youtube to be biased: Be it the presentation (monotone voice) to the numerous facts it forgot to mention, so to assert people living healthy inside Chernobyl is unscientific.

So here’s my video… (Hopefully a lot less biased)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Liberal1984

Wertwog Most reputable geneticists and biogenetictists agree that 99% of all mutations are deleterious and do not contribute to the genome, in fact they degrade it.

This is true, and is to be expected (in nature most mutations also aren’t useful) however it’s the last 1% (or less) evolution permanently benefits from.

Only if these are passed along reproductively.

A few who are proposing the idea of mutagenesis are still on the fringes of science because they haven't been able to accurately get these mutations to show beneficially over several generations.

Not at all!

Really? Please show studies how induced radiation has shown beneficial mutations passed along over several generations with no morbidity.

Evolution absolutely depends on mutations because this is the only way that new alleles and new regulatory regions are created. users.rcn.com... I mean how else would anything evolve original change? And (if) you deny evolution, then I'm afraid it’s you who is "on the fringes of science".

I do not deny evolution. I deny that nuclear accidents injecting catastrophic radiation into the environment assists evolution.

Selective breeding and generic modification are indeed more reliable ways of ensuring scientists get whatever they seek, and so it’s for that reason, this is where efforts are mostly focused.

Selective breeding is a natural way to effect change over time. It has nothing to do with radiation.

Radiation is showing to be not a great vehicle for introducing variability in the gene pool because mutations in the reproduction necessary for this transmission tend to kill the host.

Two things: A. The shorter a creatures natural lifespan, the less likely it is to be effected by radiation. This means most animals can survive environments far more radioactive than us humans (since today we’re scheduled to live over 80 years).

Almost all the insects in Chernobyl suffered catastrophic population failure, the same is true for the animals and the plants. In fact the shorter the lifespan the faster they die-off.

B. The faster it reproduces, the faster any benefits are passed on. Butterflies will be the least effected, and quickest to pass on any changes. Whilst most changes are at first negative, those that are, will in time die-out. This can only be accelerated by the fact radioactivity is unevenly distributed, so a species pollution suffering in highly radioactive area will still have a healthy gene pool “topping” itself up. Whilst both populations will pass negative effects several generations or more, the fact negative changes are (in evolutionary terms) negative, also means they die-out.

Again, please show studies that demonstrate the mechanism how mutagenic benefits are passed on. Insects and butterflies where shown to be the most and first effected in Chernobyl.

There have been many bogus and unscientific reports in the MSM trying to get people to come around to the idea of beneficial radiation to advance the nuke agenda and brainwash people even more that "radiation is good", and it's simply not - for animals, plants or humans.

I’ve not heard of such a strategy, and it would self-evidently be in vein anyway, since (even if people could still believe radiation was beneficial, and did therefore seek to be irradiated) I think you’ll discover they'll always want a controlled dose, over an uncontrolled one!

It is not self-evident. In fact it is often very cleaver and pulls the wool over the eyes of many well meaning people. Most people do not want a controlled dose of any radiation as there is no safe dose. If you are arguing for "controlling" radiation doses to inject "beneficial" mutation on an evolutionary scale, well, all I can say is good luck. So far it doesn't appear to have been a mechanism that scientists can replicate.

Furthermore (I) found everything about your Youtube to be biased: Be it the presentation (monotone voice) to the numerous facts it forgot to mention, so to assert people living healthy inside Chernobyl is unscientific.
So here’s my video… (Hopefully a lot less biased)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's how the guy talks and how he talks is irrelevant to what we are discussing. He is looking at the unscientific assertion of the reporter and analyzing it. It is not biased simply because you disagree with it.

I watched your video and all I can encourage you to do is investigate "logical fallacies" and apply them to this work and see what you come up with. Logical fallacies. Also I don't think "positive thinking" is going to help insects very much.

Reduced populations of insects after Chernobyl

I encourage you to read Bandajevsky Study also.