That wasn't my take-away after reading this. The article shows that animals are in fact being affected by the radiation. Is that not expected? It'd only been 33 years at the time this article was written - a handful of generations - and evolution takes time. Life on this planet hasn't really evolved to deal with high levels of background radiation for the most part. That said, it appears they are in fact evolving:
> "Some birds make use of melanin for coloration, but they also make use of the precursor to melanin as an antioxidant, which may provide some measure of defence against the ionizing radiation," said Mousseau.
> In a study, he found that those birds that seemed to show less genetic damage ended up being a bit lighter coloured.
> "It looks like there's a tradeoff in the use of this antioxidant between colouration and defence against oxidative stress or ionizing radiation."
Or, alternatively, to paraphrase, while the animals there haven't yet evolved a complete defense to the ionizing radiation, some species are expressing traits correlated to their ability to withstand it. This gives them a survival advantage, so over time, it stands to reason they will compensate.
> "But it's clear that there's more going on than just the acute exposure effects."
I must have missed the part where the author threw up their hands and yelled "looks like the animals are f'd."
I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that changes to the environment are very much in nature's wheelhouse. Humans, especially individual humans, are the fragile ones. Life has shown itself incredibly resilient, and some increases in background radiation aren't about to stop it. After all, tardigrades are able to survive constant irradiation hundreds of times the lethal dose for humans while frozen solid in space.
arcticbull|6 years ago
> "Some birds make use of melanin for coloration, but they also make use of the precursor to melanin as an antioxidant, which may provide some measure of defence against the ionizing radiation," said Mousseau.
> In a study, he found that those birds that seemed to show less genetic damage ended up being a bit lighter coloured.
> "It looks like there's a tradeoff in the use of this antioxidant between colouration and defence against oxidative stress or ionizing radiation."
Or, alternatively, to paraphrase, while the animals there haven't yet evolved a complete defense to the ionizing radiation, some species are expressing traits correlated to their ability to withstand it. This gives them a survival advantage, so over time, it stands to reason they will compensate.
> "But it's clear that there's more going on than just the acute exposure effects."
I must have missed the part where the author threw up their hands and yelled "looks like the animals are f'd."
I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that changes to the environment are very much in nature's wheelhouse. Humans, especially individual humans, are the fragile ones. Life has shown itself incredibly resilient, and some increases in background radiation aren't about to stop it. After all, tardigrades are able to survive constant irradiation hundreds of times the lethal dose for humans while frozen solid in space.