Mythbusters to Test Cockroach Radiation Myth 573
redwoodtree writes "An article on the site for the Tri-City Herald sums it up perfectly: 'Contrary to popular belief, not a significant amount of research goes into cockroach radiation.' To test the old saw about 'the cockroaches being the only survivors of a nuclear war' Discovery Channel's Mythbusters are going out to Hanford Site, where plutonium was manufactured for the first nuclear bomb. It's the single most polluted nuclear waste site in the U.S. The Mythbusters are going to take cockroaches and other insects and apply successively higher doses of radiation in a controlled setting."
Sorry... (Score:4, Funny)
Really, I apologize, I can't help it...
Re:Is it a MYTH??? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is it a MYTH??? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is it a MYTH??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is it a MYTH??? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is it a MYTH??? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They've done a few in the past (such as the "pyramids of power" myth [or something along that name]) and on that show, Adam specifically said that he hoped that they would not have to do any more "oogie-boogie" myths. It was later explained to be anything along the lines of bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, psychics, astrology, aliens, et cetra.
Really, they limit themselves to things that are truly testable; they avoi
Re:Is it a MYTH??? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is it a MYTH??? (Score:5, Funny)
You are mythtaken, it is actually a mythtery
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why does the first post is *ALWAYS* funny? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget to test twinkies as well (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well (Score:5, Funny)
Are you NUTS? They'll MUTATE! It's bad enough with NORMAL lawyers already!
Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously, science should be doing more research into this issue.
Re:Don't forget to test twinkies as well (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"In the event of a nuclear holocaust, the only survivors would be cockroaches and Keith Richards [keithrichards.com] ".
Personally at this point, I don't think anything can kill him....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Holy water?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Safety? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Funny)
Note: this is generally good advice anywhere.
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it isn't now, but I had friends working for Bechtel, who were doing radiochemical testing of natural ponds to try and figure out which one was going to go critical *first*. I'm not joking or exaggerating: there was so much leaked radioactive material on/in the ground that they expected it to concentrate through natural drainage to above critical mass. One friend told me about several of the criticality incidents they had, where waste plutonium had accumulated in oil-filled coolant ducts and started thermal runaway reactions (that boiled all the oil, displacing all the plutonium chips, which then settled back down to start the cycle again...) So while Hanford might be okay now, I wouldn't go there unless I was with someone who had worked there a long, long time. That's the only place I've ever visited where they gave me a heavy steel tag with a number stamped on it, for rugged identification, along with the film badge.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're not joking...but perhaps you should be. For critical mass, you're talking between 10kg of plutonium (Pu-239) to 80kg (Pu-242). That's a lot of Pu to have "leaked". Not impossible I suppose (in terms of volume, even a Pu-242 core is less than a foot in diameter), but even if there was 10kg of loose Plutonium in the grou
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember people talking about this back when I worked there, and some of them were actually around when it happened.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Safety? (Score:4, Informative)
For example, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1961USSR2.html [johnstonsarchive.net] and several other ones (I'm too lazy to search)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radcrit.html [johnstonsarchive.net]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Informative)
It's nice to see my home-town being used for such an awesome mythbusters episode. : )
This is osjedi, reporting live from Tri-Cities, WA. Home of the world's best apples, grapes, hopps, cherrys, and weapons grade plutonium.
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Interesting)
Gamma irradiator. Basically, big lead tube with a gamma source inside. You can't get it out. You can't expose the source to the outside world. There is a lead "airlock". You put the roach inside. Irradiate. Release. I went to a High School that had a gamma irradiator. We DID this experiment. Exposed roach to greater than 1000, but less than 10000 roentgens. We weren't real precise. But the roach lived long enough for us to decide we better squish it before it reproduced.
Oh, yes, "stuff doesn't glow when you expose it to radiation". Not 100% true. Some stuff DOES. Namely most crystals. One of the most impressive examples is Sodium Chloride. Yep, table salt. Irradiate it overnight. The gamma rays knock the electrons up to a higher energy level. But since salt has a very tight crystaline structure, they don't snap back down immediatly. Remove from irradiator, and over the course of the next 24 hours, it glows pretty brightly (bright as a glow stick) in a funky red-orange light (spectra of sodium). Eventually all the electrons snap back down to their ground state and it quits glowing. Not radioactive at any point while this is going on. The only thing it emits is red-orange photons which are not "radiation" by most people's standards. (Well it is, but ALL light is...)
Dude! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dude! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Safety? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And the cooling water in a reactor...
rj
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The blue glow comes when a particle is emited near the speed of light through air and hits the water. It momentarily exceeds the speed of light through water (allowed since it is not exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum), but has to slow down. Slowing down ditches energy which must go somwhere, a blue photon in this case.
AFAIK, the particles don't have to slow down. As you said it's not exceeding c and there's no physical law forcing it to be slowed down to the local speed of light. Cerenkov radiation is the optical/electromagnetic equivalent of a sonic boom, which is created by a plane traveling faster than the local speed of sound.
Of course, the energy in the light has to come from somewhere and the particle is slowed down eventually. However, there are many ways in which particles radiate by slowing down (e.g. sy
Re:Safety? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I had Mr. Mocherman. We didn't exactly ASK before putting the roach in. But it was his big ole boot that squished the roach. I think the experiment became verboten after we did it because I think he fully expected the roach to die and was shocked that it didn't.
His exact words were "Can't let that one breed. {squish}"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How much is that in megatons?
Different types of unit. From my vaguely recalled nuke classes from a decade ago, a 1 megaton nuclear blast with clear line-of-sight gives a human the smaller dose at on the order of 30 miles from ground zero, the higher dose at on the order of 10 miles. A 1000 roentgen whole-body dose is sometimes survivable with extensive medical treatment, but requires a compatible bone marrow transplant within under a
Safety isn't the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
In a former life, I worked as an NDT technician. One of our biggest jobs was industrial radiography. Which, long story short, involves radioisotope cameras and lots of safety training. With an radiation safety expert, radiation alarms, survey meters, and proper equipment they'll be plenty safe.
The biggest problem for them would be to properly dose the cockroaches. What kinds and levels of radiation will they be receiving? Any clown can x-ray a roach until it dies, but what would the fallout profile of a world-ending nuclear war look like? What's the long-term effect of radioisotopes in their bodies? How much ionizing radiation will they receive?
There's alpha, beta, gamma, neutron... What kind of radiation are they going to use? Safety, while incredibly important for an experiment like this, is relatively easy to accomplish if they get an expert. Attacking the correct problem may prove far more troublesome.
Re:Safety isn't the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 (Score:4, Funny)
creation of super-PETA (Score:3, Funny)
besides, this is for scientific research....not solely for entertainment like that roach-eating contest.
(and for the record....roaches have been around for millions of years....they've survived the devastation that wiped out most other forms of life...they can surely survive if a few of their comrades get irradiated.)
Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 (Score:5, Interesting)
But really the question is not that simple. Would you savagely murder one fluffy dog to save 100M people from a deadly virus? Would you savagely murder one human to save 100M people from a deadly virus? Would you savagely murder 1M humans to save 100M people from a deadly virus? Where is your threshold? I believe this is what Protectors of the Ringworld couldn't wrap their mind about.
Deadly virus? (Score:5, Insightful)
These kinds of "dilemma's" are nothing but intellectual masturbation. I'll tell you right now: in a real world situation, that man or that dog would be a greasy spot if it was only thought that their death would save 100,000 people.
And as for the reverse, you can bet, in a quarantine situation, they would kill as many as it took (or as they could) to keep the sick separated from the well. It's the only thing that can be done in that situation, 1, 100, or 1,000,000. The reverse also holds: if you were stuck in a quarantine, and you believed yourself or your family to be in danger of being infected, you'd do whatever you could to break quarantine, even at the risk of infecting countless others...That's why they defend barricades with guns, not pamphlets on disease control.
The desire to protect yourself and your loved ones trumps it all, when it comes down to it. That's just human nature.
Hmph. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who are you saving? What are you actually doing? You're just torturing some slob for dated information that's not going to help anyone. And torture is a crappy way of getting accurate information anyhow...Witness all the people who "confessed" to witchcraft during the inquisition, and the witch trials.
Traditional intelligence gathering methods were sufficient to get the information that would have stopped 9/11, if the methods of analysis were good enough. Now, they're gathering so much more information, and I've seen no proof that their methods of analysis have improved by anything even resembling a similar amount...Basically, they're drowning themselves in un-analyzed crap information, while giving concrete examples to the people who think that we're corrupt torturers, that we are in fact, corrupt torturers, and screwing the people at home who're finding it hard to think we really are the good guys when we're torturing POWs, and yes, if we're "at war" with terror, then people we capture in the war, are POWs...That's what it means.
In short, it's stupid, it's pointless, and it's immoral. We may be forgiven for taking the moral low road for an end like saving a million people, but when you take the moral low road for a worthless end, you should expect to be strung up by your nuts for it. Make no mistake; you sacrifice a human life because of something you think is right, that's still murder...If enough other people think you were right to do so, society may forgive you. Otherwise, they may put your ass in the electric chair.
Ha. (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't been in that situation, so I'm not quite sure what I'd do. It'll depend on a lot of things. How long do I stay in quarantine if there is no food? How long if no water? No vague attempt at medical aid from the outside? No idea.
But you apparently know...Unlike all the "trample your fellow man" sheep of the world, you'd never act in anything but a selfless manner.
Or you're talking out of your ass. I've seen a lot of people talk a big line, and the bigger the line, the faster they crack when the shit hits the fan.
Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 (Score:5, Informative)
Objection, your Honor - Loaded Question (Or is it leading the witness?)!
The correct question is "So what is your criteria for what you will and won't kill?"
"Killing" is performing an action that causes something that is living to cease doing so.
"Murder" is a legal definition, along with "manslaughter", "homicide", etc. By it's very definition, it is impossible to "murder" a cockroach.
If you are going to troll, do it correctly.
Re: (Score:3)
Deliberately using a loaded term in order to better incite a reaction isn't trolling correctly?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Call from PETA in ... 3, 2, 1 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if you think morality is derived from christian values (as you define them--every christian has a different definition), then it is obvious that you have never studied even the tiniest little bit of philosophy. Put bluntly, you are too ignorant to even begin the discussion of wh
Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mythbusters uses their science terminology properly, is open to peer review, and doesn't try to trick anyone. They even go so far as retesting things if their viewers find holes in their methodologies. It may not be formal, academic science, but it IS real science.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OK, maybe they sometimes DO science, but it is bad science with laughable conclusions. They start with a vague hypothesis and little facts and state a shaky hypothesis. They then proceed to create an experiment to test the shaky hypothesis in the fl
Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? (Score:4, Insightful)
They start with a vague hypothesis and little facts and state a shaky hypothesis.
Well, this satisfies a myth then. If what they started with had facts or a sold hypothesis, it wouldn't be (presumed to be) a myth. I haven't seen them test if a feather and a rock will fall at the same speed in a vacuum. My take on it is their whole point is to take on anything with a lot of hearsay and not so much fact.
I don't know how they work behind the scenes, but my guess and hope would be they do a ton of stuff that never airs because it becomes too obvious and/or not fun to watch. That IS their prerogative. They say "plausible" or "busted", but they only mean in terms of their data point(s).
Their methodology may not be perfectly sound, but they never claimed to be any final source of information. To me, they try desperately to look like technologically inclined rednecks. They even grew an extra beard on the show just for that purpose. To take them for anything more
"All data collected in this show is just added to the total data collected by anyone anywhere and does not represent any sort of total coverage of any particular topic in specifics or generalities. You'd be a cheese brained fool to take what this show presents to be the truth outside of its own scope and you'd deserve a federally regulated flogging if you apply the data presented to other real world situations. If in any event you use anything you saw on this show to save your life, Darwin will smite you from the Earth with a great vengeance."
BRB.. more beer...
Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? (Score:4, Insightful)
I assume if they don't mention a documented case then they couldn't find one. Eg for cell phone at gas station:
http://www.automedia.com/Protecting_Yourself_While_at_the_Pump/dsm20040101sp/3 [automedia.com]
For buried alive, they admit in some experiments they have to compromise if it means a high chance they will be killed. They do their best to work around it.
For the black powder engine, as well as the other ancient recreations, it's far simpler than a modern combustion engine. Even there I am impressed how they can take a seized up old car or cement lorry and coax the internal combustion engine back to life within such a short time. Before they destroy it.
You can nit pick a couple of individual experiments out of the hundreds they have done... do it in their forums and they will do another episode for you to prove they can eliminate any holes you can find.
It is a TV show. And it IS science.
Phillip.
Re:Cockroaches, harmed in the making of broadcast? (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, roaches and dogs taste COMPLETELY different.
go-go roachzilla (Score:5, Funny)
So, what precautions do they have on hand in the event one of them grows to enormous size and goes on a rampage?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:go-go roachzilla (Score:5, Funny)
Adam will whip up something out of a chainsaw, some mysterious plumbing he found at the junk jard, and a large tank of napthalene that he happened to have out back. The result will have a major design flaw but will spew flaming death anyway. The result will be bolted onto Jamie's customised vending machine robot. With the addition of about twelve wireless video cameras, the result will go out and kick ass. Adam will get overexcited.
Does that answer your question?
COAP? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Once they leave, they need to stay gone!
Morons.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm tired of all these muthaf**kin' cockroaches on this muthaf**kin' plane!!
Re:COAP? (Score:5, Funny)
Cockroaches are used to better living conditions than coach anyway... certainly better food.
Call Homeland Security on these terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought it was for a different reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Not studied? (Score:5, Informative)
Funny, it seems that a lot of scientists have done just that. [google.com]
For a pretty decent explanation: the mysterious Dr. Karl! [abc.net.au]
Nukes? Cockroaches are dead even w/o radiation (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't let Jamie get hit with radiation... (Score:5, Funny)
...otherwise his mustache will become huge and go on a rampage!
Boric Acid (Score:5, Funny)
And I thought they were geeks (Score:3, Funny)
take care (Score:5, Funny)
Re:take care (Score:5, Funny)
- Fear of light
- Lives mostly indoors
- Hunched over
- Content with junk food
*looks at "computer nerd" checklist**looks at "Cockroach-Man" checklist*
Oh my God.
I HAVE SUPER POWERS
From Caltech via the Wayback Machine (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:From Caltech via the Wayback Machine (Score:4, Funny)
wont someone think of the Cockroaches! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:wont someone think of the Cockroaches! (Score:5, Insightful)
To all of those whining "oh, how can they just kill those living things???". Put down your fucking hamburger, take off your leather shoes, and head off into the woods. Go take up your own cause and live naked in a cave you overzealous assholes.
I'm still waiting.... (Score:4, Funny)
Number of Roaches? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because some cockroaches survive (Score:4, Interesting)
I've done this (Score:5, Interesting)
It's actually very simple (Score:3, Interesting)
However, after a nuclear blast, the fallout would be a source of constant radiation and would probably kill any roaches that had to live in it for a week or two.
Novel means of killing cock roaches (Score:3, Interesting)
Try it, its pretty amazing.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Suffer the little creatures (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard an interview once with a scientist who wanted "endangered species" to include the less cuddly critters. He cited the fact that when the last surviving California condors were captured for breeding, the first thing that was done to them was a delousing. It never occurred to anybody that if a species is endangered, then their parasites must be endangered as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, there are parasites that jump species, and humans, having invaded almost every habitat on the planet, have encountered (and been infected by) most of t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So every time they fumigate a TV studio, it's wrong? But it's okay to take a magnifying glass to the ants in your yard, because you feel like it?
You're way too sensitive.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Luckily for us all they are not capable of enforcing such a ridiculous declaration.
If they ever were able to do so, their first act would be to abolish the Nuclear Force [wikipedia.org] which , ironically, would result in the most spectacular explosion this world has ever seen (and apparently that was specifically what they were trying to discourage).