tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post8604049428365180074..comments2024-03-27T00:22:35.272-07:00Comments on EXSKF: "Butterfly Mutations Caused by #Fukushima #Radiation" a Redux of the Sokal Affair?arevamirpal::laprimaverahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637620330944911600noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-75271184335474425522013-06-07T00:30:05.564-07:002013-06-07T00:30:05.564-07:00I hardly leave a response, however i did some sear...I hardly leave a response, however i did some searching <br />and wound up here ""Butterfly Mutations Caused <br />by #Fukushima #Radiation" a Redux of the Sokal Affair?".<br />And I actually do have a few questions for you if it's allright. Could it be only me or does it look as if like some of the responses look like written by brain dead people? :-P And, if you are posting on additional social sites, I would like to follow everything new you have to post. Could you make a list of the complete urls of your shared pages like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?<br /><br />Feel free to visit my web blog: <a href="http://wiki.ueb.pt/index.php?title=Utilizador:ClydeHJA" rel="nofollow">more</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-31399463930971229132012-08-21T06:38:43.038-07:002012-08-21T06:38:43.038-07:00Well, ICRP recommends general population not to be...Well, ICRP recommends general population not to be exposed to more than 1mSv/yr on top of the natural background and medical exposure. ICRP is a private organization funded by the nuclear industry, they are not scientists nor physicians; they just recommend policies. Their standing is the same as Greenpeace.<br />Forget the butterflies: if you are exposed to more than what ICRP recommends consider moving somewhere else. 5 mSv/yr? 20 mSv/yr?? Have kids??? If you just can move somewhere else, do it.<br />BeppeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-15207161539710633602012-08-21T00:20:16.278-07:002012-08-21T00:20:16.278-07:00In the end, a lot of academic research can be atta...In the end, a lot of academic research can be attacked or questionned ("eating dark chocolate reduces cancer risk" etc.).<br /><br />There won't be an absolute truth. Live with it.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-74184364812303128892012-08-19T09:11:55.330-07:002012-08-19T09:11:55.330-07:00Radiation Danger Covered Up Ever Since Nuclear Wea...Radiation Danger Covered Up Ever Since Nuclear Weapons Invented<br />Posted on August 17, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog<br />Government Has Been Covering up Radiation Danger for 67 Years<br />http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/government-has-been-covering-up-radiation-danger-for-67-years.html<br />.<br />.<br />Hiroshima Cover-up: Stripping the War Department’s Timesman of His Pulitzer<br />http://www.democracynow.org/2005/8/5/hiroshima_cover_up_stripping_the_warAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-35129818773709542632012-08-19T03:40:01.042-07:002012-08-19T03:40:01.042-07:00About the method they used to produce the second a...About the method they used to produce the second and third generation, in which they detected an increasing rate of abnormalities, it would seem they chose a few specimens (male and female) and put them in isolation tanks until they mated, but I don't know if the abnormal specimens would have mated in natural conditions.<br /><br />In general, I think the problem is not with the paper itself, but with the researchers presented the results to the media. In the paper they just mention possibilities (we can't discard other factors, etc.) but talking with the journalists they seemed pretty sure of having proved the effects of radiation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-70357691068193418782012-08-18T22:39:06.877-07:002012-08-18T22:39:06.877-07:00arevamirpal::laprimavera, I read the twitter thre...arevamirpal::laprimavera, I read the twitter thread you posted.<br /><br />As you point out in the post, their main argument is that the butterfly has more mutations the further north the population stretches. They specifically mention graph 5.d, which seems to show a clear increase in mutations around Fukushima. They speculate that this might be due to the location effect rather than the radiation, and they claim to have spotted a mis-labeled plot (Shiroshi / Ube) which they say is indicative of 'rushed' work.<br /><br />However if you read the paper properly, graph 5.d actually shows mutations in captive OKINAWAN butterflies which were fed contaminated food collected in different parts of Fukushima when compared to a control group fed on leaves collected in Ube city, Yamaguchi. This is clearly stated in the caption, did the twitterers get that totally wrong? <br /><br />They also raise inbreeding and temperature fluctuations during the rearing process as possible confounding factors, which might be valid questions, but hopefully they'll address that in a proper letter to Nature where they can outline their case in a way that is open to a proper response from the authors.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-25845089851703036752012-08-18T21:18:53.102-07:002012-08-18T21:18:53.102-07:00Scientific Reports - speed seems to be the key. &q...Scientific Reports - speed seems to be the key. "peer reviewed by at least one member of the academic community" <br /><br />http://www.nature.com/srep/about/index.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-72679511430611769242012-08-18T21:08:38.867-07:002012-08-18T21:08:38.867-07:00That particular magazine is not known for rigorous...That particular magazine is not known for rigorous peer review process. Rather, they strive to get it out the door quickly, and then have open discussions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-34111425679322956842012-08-18T20:50:24.403-07:002012-08-18T20:50:24.403-07:00Dave, so they are not sure about anything, but hav...Dave, so they are not sure about anything, but have no problem declaring these particular mutations are caused by radiation? Doesn't make sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-1143605955555862122012-08-18T20:48:11.633-07:002012-08-18T20:48:11.633-07:00Jim and Dave, good job at cheap shots and generali...Jim and Dave, good job at cheap shots and generalization. I trust tweets by people who actually know something than your peer reviewed magazines.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-45065257411727873572012-08-18T20:39:06.983-07:002012-08-18T20:39:06.983-07:00The quotes from the paper provided by Dave above s...The quotes from the paper provided by Dave above seem to comprehensively address the criticisms pulled by EX-SKF from twitter - are there other more compelling critiques in the twitter timeline worth translating? <br /><br />Are these same twitter critiques also leveled at the other papers cited in the new paper as having demonstrated similar effects in other species? <br /><br />36. Teruya, T., Zukeyama, H. & Itoˆ, Y. Sterilization of the melon fly, Dacus cucurbitae<br />Coquillett with gamma radiation: effect on rate of emergence, longevity and<br />fertility. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 10, 298–301 (1975).<br /><br />37. Takada, N. et al. A novel indicator for radiation sensitivity using the wing size<br />reduction of Bombyx mori pupae caused by c-ray irradiation. J. Insect Biotechnol.<br />Sericol. 75, 161–165 (2006).<br /><br />38. Vinson, S. B., Londono, R. L. & Bartlett, A. C. Effect of gamma radiation on tissues<br />of the tobacco budworm, Heliothis virescens. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 62,<br />1340–1347 (1969).<br /><br />39. Hayashi, K. & Koyama, J. Effects of gamma irradiation on external and internal<br />morphological characters of the adult melon fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett<br />(Diptera: Tephritidae). Jpn. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 25, 141–149 (1981).<br /><br />40. El-Akhdar, E. A. H. & Afia, Y. E. Functional ultrastructure of antenna, wings and<br />their associated sensory receptors of peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders)<br />as influenced by the sterilizing dose of gamma irradiation. J. Rad. Res. Appl. Sci. 2,<br />797–817 (2009).<br /><br />Call me old fashioned but are we really going to start tearing up all these peer reviewed papers based on twitter? Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-37482765150993674212012-08-18T19:20:22.746-07:002012-08-18T19:20:22.746-07:00I'd like to know what others think about the v...I'd like to know what others think about the videos available online where Galen Winsor, a man very familiar with radiation, had a completely different take on the whole scary radiation model. Is it a con to keep power prices high?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-2567153402642537652012-08-18T18:14:53.528-07:002012-08-18T18:14:53.528-07:00Well Dave, you're not answering any of the que...Well Dave, you're not answering any of the questions anyway. So the author quoted his own study. So what? All he says is the new study is different from the old one he did, without explaining what is different or why is different. But no point in asking you, as you say, when you don't seem to know a thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-56009341069618534672012-08-18T16:50:47.886-07:002012-08-18T16:50:47.886-07:00RT:Anon
Then why are the researchers so damn sure...RT:Anon<br /><br />Then why are the researchers so damn sure it is because of Fukushima radiations? <br /><br />In the 'Discussion' section:<br />"Although epigenetic effects cannot be entirely excluded41, it is most likely that the abnormal phenotypes observed are produced by random mutations caused by the exposure to radiation. This outbreak of abnormal phenotypes in the Fukushima area is very different from the outbreak of wing colour-pattern changes previously observed at the northern range margins of this species, i.e., the Fukaura area27, which is located approximately 400 km northwest of the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP. The Fukaura populations at the time of the outbreak were composed of temperature-shock types that exhibit distinct wing colour-pattern modifications but no other wing modifications or aberrations. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, no malformations of appendages and other parts have been detected27, 41, 42, 43. In contrast, the outbreak in the Fukushima area includes various unexpected abnormal phenotypes. These abnormalities cannot be expressed within the range of phenotypic plasticity exhibited by normal populations. This information and the experimental data obtained in this study allow us to conclude that the present outbreak of abnormal individuals in the Fukushima area was caused by random genetic mutations in addition to physiological effects due to the artificial radionuclides from the Fukushima Dai-ich NPP."<br /><br />There's a lost more that preceeds this, so I'd suggest reading the whole Discussion in particular.<br /><br /><br />Also, one thing that is evident throughout the paper is they're not 'damn sure' of anything - there's lots of additional avenues that have to be thoroughly investigated and many questions still remain. Science is a work in progress, this paper only addresses a very small part of it.<br /><br />And it raises crucially important new questions too, for which we should all be glad.<br /><br />Cheers, DiT<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-23597045957442562732012-08-18T16:26:37.489-07:002012-08-18T16:26:37.489-07:00About that Joji M. Otaki (J.M.O.):
Contributions...About that Joji M. Otaki (J.M.O.):<br /><br /><br />Contributions<br /><br />A.H., C.N. and J.M.O. conceived the study, A.H., C.N., S.K., and J.M.O. performed field work for collecting butterflies and for recording data, A.H. and C.N. performed breeding experiments and examined morphological structures, C.N., W.T., and A.H. helped planning field work, A.H. and S.G. performed external exposure experiment, C.N. performed internal exposure experiment, C.N. and A.T. quantified contaminant radionuclides in host plants, W.T. performed statistical analysis, A.H. and J.M.O. made figures and tables for the paper, and J.M.O. directed the study and wrote the paper.<br />Competing financial interests<br /><br />The authors declare no competing financial interests.<br />Corresponding author<br /><br />Correspondence to:<br /><br /> Joji M. Otaki<br /><br /><br />If the study still leaves you in doubt, just ask him!<br /><br />Cheers, Dave<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-89862049335263548042012-08-18T16:21:16.502-07:002012-08-18T16:21:16.502-07:00Dave in Tronto, I have read the entire paper.
&qu...Dave in Tronto, I have read the entire paper.<br /><br />"Because this was a test to track genetic and physical mutations through generations, not radiation levels."<br /><br />Then why are the researchers so damn sure it is because of Fukushima radiations? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-73401873866054093952012-08-18T16:10:03.545-07:002012-08-18T16:10:03.545-07:00These particular butterflies' original, natura...These particular butterflies' original, natural habitat is southern, warmer locales such as Okinawa, and Kyushu, Shikoku.<br /><br />These butterflies have been known to have a lot of mutations as it migrates ever northward, far outside their natural habitat, LONG BEFORE the Fukushima accident, and it has been well studied and the results published<br /><br />Why did these researchers pick this particular species prone to mutations if they really wanted to isolate the effect of radiation?<br /><br />A:We use the pale grass blue butterfly Zizeeria maha (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae) as an indicator species to evaluate the environmental conditions. A reliable rearing method has been established for this species24. Butterflies are generally considered useful environmental indicators10, 15, 25, 26, and this species is particularly suitable for this purpose because it is widespread in Japan, including the Fukushima area, and because its wing colour patterns are sensitive to environmental changes24, 27. In the past, this species was used to evaluate the ecological risk associated with transgenic maize pollen28, 29.<br /><br /><br />The Joji Otaki paper you quote in your post is, in fact, cited and used - it's footnote 27 above.<br /><br /><br /><br />But did they actually measure radiation in the butterflies? They seem to have tested the leaves that the butterflies eat, but not the butterflies themselves.<br /><br /><br />Because this was a test to track genetic and physical mutations through generations, not radiation levels. The control group was used to compare resulting mutations through their generations vs. that of others collected in the affected area.<br /><br /><br />The truly newsworthy aspect to this study is just how much damage very low exposures over time can be - 'very low' being fractions of what is generally considered 'safe'. That's going to cause a lot of raised eyebrows.<br /><br />I really, truly love the blog - and I can't imagine how difficult it's been to keep it going as you have, for so long. Kudos!<br />And it's incredibly important. Please do take the time to read the study fully, to answer your remaining questions not addressed above. And anyone commenting who has yet to do the same.<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120809/srep00570/full/srep00570.html<br /><br />Best to all from Dave in TorontoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-48332942405542957822012-08-18T16:06:46.707-07:002012-08-18T16:06:46.707-07:00There is even more... *grin*
I look at FD extremel...There is even more... *grin*<br />I look at FD extremely rarely, here its imho best pranks I saw there:<br /><br />http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/03/tap-water-glows-blue/<br /><br />http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/01/breaking-news-whistle-blower-talks-container-vessel-is-melting-like-honeycomb/<br />Atomfritznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-74337957318844331162012-08-18T15:24:40.384-07:002012-08-18T15:24:40.384-07:00But wait, there's more...
- Namie-machi resid...But wait, there's more...<br /><br />- Namie-machi residents died of acute radiation...oh wait, they starved to death...oh wait, it's both!<br /><br />- 36% of Fukushima children have thyroid cancer! ... oh wait, they are comparing two different data sets? Who cares! Minor details!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-79670124930902423662012-08-18T14:57:25.654-07:002012-08-18T14:57:25.654-07:00@ anon 1:48 and anon 1:50
Yes, they had two diffe...@ anon 1:48 and anon 1:50<br /><br />Yes, they had two different Okinawa test groups, one for internal (Fukushima food) and one for external (Cs-137 source) irradiation tests. See chapter "Effects of external and internal exposures".<br /><br /><br />But, as you say, the number of samples seems to be a bit low to make really meaningful conclusions.<br /><br />At least there should be follow-up studies on a larger, statistically significant scale, maybe also with other species than butterflies only, too.<br /><br />The Hanford animal radiation testing studies are still classified.<br />If the results were not worrying, why then should they be classified still?Atomfritznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-48582009594295072052012-08-18T14:39:50.830-07:002012-08-18T14:39:50.830-07:00All the king's horses and all the king's m...All the king's horses and all the king's men.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-16573196584265670882012-08-18T13:53:22.187-07:002012-08-18T13:53:22.187-07:00Damage done anyway. Now the world believes these b...Damage done anyway. Now the world believes these butterflies mutated because of radiation from Fukushima nuke plant, and those who dare doubt are labeled government/TEPCO/nuke industry shills, deniers, paid agents, bad people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-38009759587965320402012-08-18T13:50:24.102-07:002012-08-18T13:50:24.102-07:00Frankly, no way to tell WHAT caused the mutations ...Frankly, no way to tell WHAT caused the mutations in the butterflys. Migration/temperature? Fukushima Radiation? Migration over areas of Japan with radiation prior to 3/2011? There are also not enough samples; as damaged as the ones presented are. So...time will tell. Harder to hide in larger animals (mammals...). Anyone studying those monkeys? Or dogs/cats or rabbits??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-74936569436280495722012-08-18T13:48:40.178-07:002012-08-18T13:48:40.178-07:00@Atomfritz, they zapped the butterflies with radia...@Atomfritz, they zapped the butterflies with radiation in addition to feeding them leaves. <br /><br />And we're supposed to take their word for it when they say these mutations are different from mutations due to cold temperatures.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-80155425360868631952012-08-18T13:42:33.235-07:002012-08-18T13:42:33.235-07:00I am still not understanding this fully.
The imag...I am still not understanding this fully.<br /><br />The image you show in the post is about the F2 generation, produced by crossing Fukushima etc F1 offspring with (relatively healthy) Tsukuba F1 offspring.<br /><br />They wrote about unexpected fertility difficulties, either insemination seemed unsuccessful or offspring didn't survive until finishing pupation stage.<br /><br />Could this be an explanation for the little number of available F2 specimens from hard-hit areas like Iwaki3 and Fukushima2?<br /><br />And, they also wrote about Okinawan butterflies as test group, which was fed with verified radioactive Fukushima food and developed the same infertility and disabling mutations like the Fukushima specimens (not just the normal variations of wing color patterns, which seem to be the "normal" mutations at this species). <br /><br />What could/should have possibly caused this, if not the radioactivity?<br /><br />So I am still not sure what to think about this study and its findings. At least I understand too little yet to readily believe or dismiss the study.Atomfritznoreply@blogger.com