I found the following interesting:

"If the damaged DNA is in one of the germ cells (egg or sperm) then
the DNA changes may be carried into the next generation. While many
plant and animal experiments leave no doubt that radiation exposure
can alter genetic material, we should note that this genetic effect
has not yet been observed in the case of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
survivors. However this does not mean that there is no such effect in
humans. It may be that there were genetic abnormalities produced that
were incompatible with life and those pregnancies therefore ended in
miscarriage. It may also be that an increased rate of genetic
abnormalities will be found in future generations, that is, the
changes will skip one or more generations.

The phenomenon called genomic instability has been the subject of
research in recent years. This is the process whereby damage inflicted
on cells is detected only after several cell divisions. This
phenomenon has been reproduced several times in laboratory studies of
human cells but has not been confirmed in living humans. Such studies
would necessarily need to be extraordinarily long. However if the
theory of induced genetic instability is correct, then the human gene
pool could be permanently altered."

I'm convinced that before genetic engineering of humans can occur to
make them non-aggressive there will be at least one (if not more)
nuclear bombs detonated on civilian populations either by nuclear
terrorists (due largely to unsecured nuclear material) and/or by
states. Unlike Hoelzer I don't see this just as a current "snapshot in
time". Theoretically, the international environment could change but I
see no "forseeable" trends leading to non-proliferation and securing
nuclear materials, taking nuclear warhaeads off launch status, etc. Of
course, the biggest threat is between the U.S. and Russia which have
the majority of the nuclear arsenal but a nuclear terrorists could
trigger and inflame the international situation to the degree other
countries could become involved.
The hypothetical question I'm interested in is would a "widespread"
nuclear conflict (and this would need to be defined by the tonnage and
destructiveness of nuclear weapons detonated on civilian/military
centers) cause genomic instability of the human species?

Although according to this article germ cells were not damaged in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki these were small bombs compared with the
warheads today or the fissionable material located at nuclear sites.
Since animal experiments leave no doubt radiation exposure can alter
genetic material it seems a widespread nuclear event could damage the
germ cells in some way. Is this reasonable to assume? As the article
states, "It may also be that an increased rate of genetic
abnormalities will be found in future generations, that is, the
changes will skip one or more generations." The Japanese people?  The
Marshallese people? Any info on this?

It goes on to say, "The phenomenon called genomic instability has been
the subject of research in recent years. This is the process whereby
damage inflicted on cells is detected only after several cell
divisions. This phenomenon has been reproduced several times in
laboratory studies of human cells but has not been confirmed in living
humans". I suppose if a big enough nuclear event does happen this will
provide existing scientists with a new "fruitful" area" of research.
Finally, it states "However if the theory of induced genetic
instability is correct, then the human gene pool could be permanently
altered". How? That is what I'm curious about. Are there any
geneticists with enough of a background in nuclear radiation to at
least hypothsize what the genetic consequences could be?

I've also read that those humans who survived a big nuclear event and
were able to reproduce would be a highly selectable minority. Assuming
that is the case what would this special population possess in terms
of genes to be able to survive and propagate? I'm assuming a nuclear
winter scenario here.

I have to assume the military has already come up with "contingency"
plans for various scenarios but I think there are some unanswered
scientific questions. Given the current climate it seems likely
martial law would be declared but with a country with this size
population it would seem likely there would be a scarcity of resources
to respond; witness Hurricane Katrina.

Of course there is North Korea, Pakistan and India and Iran. One saw
how the U.S. responded to 911; bombing Afghanistan and invading and
bombing Iraq and killing 100,000 women and children. What would be
their response if they found out a terrorist cell who detonated a
nuclear bomb in the U.S. was supported by a state? Likely they would
respond with nuclear weapons. This Administration has a record of when
something bad happens of making it worse.

Australia is a rich source of uranium.

Michael Ragland

Medical Association for Prevention of War, Australia
The health impacts of nuclear power
Nuclear Forum, UNSW, October 18, 2006
Dr Sue Wareham, Former President,
Medical Association for Prevention of War
"The health impacts of nuclear power" is not necessarily an easy topic
to talk on because it is an area of medicine where there are large
gaps in our knowledge. Our knowledge has been evolving over about a
century or more, and for most of this time it has been a controversial
area of medicine, significantly because powerful interests have
clashed with the need for open, transparent research.

After the discovery of strange rays emanating from a compound of
uranium in 1896, and hence the discovery of radioactivity, which
followed very closely the discovery of X-rays in 1895, scientists and
the medical community sought applications for these new and intriguing
phenomena. However it soon became apparent that there were hazards
associated with their use, especially the development of cancers.

It was in 1928 that the first recommended limits for radiation
exposure were set. Since that time these limits have been revised on a
number of occasions, and on each occasion they have been reduced. That
is, new knowledge on the biological effects of radiation exposure has
consistently raised further concerns about the effects of previously
accepted levels of exposure.

It would therefore be extremely foolish to regard our current state of
knowledge as final, and to accept currently accepted exposure levels
as guaranteeing safety. In fact exposure limits are not designed to
guarantee safety. They are set at a level that is said to reduce risk
to "acceptable" levels. This in itself is not necessarily a criticism.
Most human activities expose us to some risk. What is more worrying
however is the fact that the nuclear age is very young and decisions
we make now, with our deeply imperfect state of knowledge, may have
lasting adverse effects for an extremely long time.

Early understanding of radiation biology was that there was a
threshold below which radiation caused no harm. This threshold
hypothesis has largely been abandoned, and there is now near universal
agreement that there is no evidence of a threshold below which
radiation exposure poses no risk. The Committee on the Biological
Effects of Ionizing Radiation, which is a panel within the US National
Academy of Sciences, re-affirmed in its most recent statement in June
2005 that "the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small
increase in risk to humans".

In June 2005, the British Medical Journal published a review of the
risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation to workers in the
nuclear industry in 15 countries, and this showed a small excess risk
of cancer. While the fact that the risk from low level radiation
exposure may be small in any particular individual, when this risk is
translated across populations, the increase in numbers of cancers can
be considerable.

One of the factors that the nuclear industry frequently reminds us of
is the fact that we are all exposed to background radiation, from
cosmic rays from the sun, from outer space, from gamma radiation from
the ground and from building materials, and to the naturally occurring
isotopes, especially potassium, in our own bodies. In addition
radiation from the legacy of atmospheric nuclear tests, from luminous
watch dials and high-altitude flights add to our exposure, as do
medical tests involving X-rays or nuclear medicine scans that many of
us undergo. What the industry does not tell us is that there is no
evidence that any of these things, including background radiation, are
perfectly safe. Almost certainly they contribute to cancer in our
society regardless of additional radiation from the nuclear power
industry.

It is well accepted in medicine that tests involving ionising
radiation should not be done unless the expected benefit outweighs the
risk of low-level radiation exposure. This is not a controversial
aspect of medicine. It is core, mainstream medical practice. It is
also unquestioned that X-rays are not done early in pregnancy when the
foetus is forming, and generally not in late pregnancy either, because
the risk to the foetus from X-rays is well known and accepted. We know
that children are more sensitive to the effects of radiation than
adults, and females are more sensitive than males.

How does ionising radiation affect health ?
Radiation exposure involves the transfer of energy to bodily tissues,
and this energy can harm or destroy molecules in human and other
animal cells. If the dose of radiation is sufficiently high, such as
that received by some of the liquidators at Chernobyl and by many of
the victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then acute radiation sickness
will result, with predictable results that can be fatal depending on
the dose.

If the dose of radiation is low, however, the situation is less clear-
cut. Often the damage done to a cell is not clinically important. But
if the damage is to a molecule of DNA, which carries the cell's
genetic code, then the cell may fail to reproduce, or the DNA might
successfully repair itself, or the cell might survive with impaired
DNA, that is a mutation, which in turn can result in cancer many years
later. Cancer can be initiated by a single radiation track through a
single cell nucleus; hence the belief that the lowest possible dose of
radiation can be harmful. While the probability of a cancer developing
increases with the radiation dose, it is a random effect. It may or
may not occur.

If the damaged DNA is in one of the germ cells (egg or sperm) then the
DNA changes may be carried into the next generation. While many plant
and animal experiments leave no doubt that radiation exposure can
alter genetic material, we should note that this genetic effect has
not yet been observed in the case of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
survivors. However this does not mean that there is no such effect in
humans. It may be that there were genetic abnormalities produced that
were incompatible with life and those pregnancies therefore ended in
miscarriage. It may also be that an increased rate of genetic
abnormalities will be found in future generations, that is, the
changes will skip one or more generations.

The phenomenon called genomic instability has been the subject of
research in recent years. This is the process whereby damage inflicted
on cells is detected only after several cell divisions. This
phenomenon has been reproduced several times in laboratory studies of
human cells but has not been confirmed in living humans. Such studies
would necessarily need to be extraordinarily long. However if the
theory of induced genetic instability is correct, then the human gene
pool could be permanently altered.

It has long been observed that children whose fathers worked at the
Sellafield reprocessing plant in the UK have an increased risk of
developing childhood leukemia. Leukemia clusters near other nuclear
establishments have been noted also. Originally this was thought to
possibly relate to local environmental contamination, but a report
published in the British Medical Journal in 1990, by Gardner,
suggested another possible explanation - that radiation affected the
father's sperm producing a mutation that increased the risk of
childhood leukemia. Again, we do not have definite proof of this.

There are many other uncertainties in the field of radiation biology,
including the extent to which data from an acute (sudden) high dose
exposure such as that at Hiroshima can be applied to chronic (long
term) low dose exposure (such as exposures associated with the nuclear
power industry).

Difficulties have been compounded by the secrecy that has surrounded
all matters related to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. In the US,
for example, the Dept of Energy has consistently suppressed
information in relation to the health of workers in the nuclear
weapons industry. Tactics include the refusal to release data on
exposure levels, and the loss of funding for researchers whose
findings are unfavourable.

Probably the most difficult factor to overcome in demonstrating the
health effects of radiation exposure is the long lead times involved
between exposure and outcomes such as cancer. Often this is decades.
For example the cancers formed as a result of the A-bombs dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki have not yet reached their peak. The difficulty
is magnified by the fact that there is no way of distinguishing a
cancer formed as a result of radiation from any other cancer.
Therefore to link a particular cancer to a particular exposure is
generally impossible. We must rely on very large and very expensive
epidemiological studies which must address multiple confounding
factors. The lower the dose, the larger the study group needs to be.

This fact has been used unscrupulously by the nuclear industry. We
should observe the language used by the industry - for example, words
such as cancers "proven" or "definitely linked' with Chernobyl or
other accidents. The industry knows that proving such a link is
impossible.

So that's some of the background to this subject and some of the
difficulties faced by researchers in the area. But how do we apply
this, and what is the evidence that seems most pertinent to Australia
right now as our government drives an agenda to dig up as much uranium
as possible and sell it to almost anyone ?

Uranium mining
Uranium-rich pitchblende has been mined for centuries. Early in the
19th century doctors in Czechoslovakia noticed that miners were dying
early from a lung condition they called "mountain sickness". The
sickness was of course lung cancer, which has been, and remains, a
significant risk for uranium miners at practically all places where
uranium has been mined, including Germany, Czechoslovakia, USA,
Canada, and France. In Australia, the numbers available for study are
small, but data from Radium Hill support the finding of an increased
rate of lung cancer. The risk is dose-related, and there is no
evidence of a threshold below which there is no risk.

In 1983, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) stated that the
wastes from uranium mining were the most ecologically damaging wastes
produced in the whole nuclear fuel chain. The NRC cited 3 main areas
of concern: firstly the enormous volumes of waste (tailings) produced
by uranium mining and milling; secondly, the radioactivity contained
in this waste; and thirdly, the prolonged life (thousands of years) of
the waste.

Uranium tailings contain over 85% of the radioactivity of the original
ore, primarily in the form of radium-226 (which has a half life of
1,600 years) and thorium-230 (half life 75,400 years). Radium and
other decay products attach themselves to tiny particles of dust and
smoke which can then be inhaled or ingested by miners and others in
the vicinity. Radium can also be concentrated in the food chain.

The most significant decay product of radium is radon gas, a short-
lived (half life 3.8 days) radioactive gas which is released when
uranium ore is mined. Radon and its decay products can be distributed
over large distances, depending on weather conditions, and, when
inhaled, deposit in the bronchial walls in the lungs.

In addition, uranium ore emits gamma radiation continuously, so that
uranium miners are exposed to both external radiation from gamma rays,
and internal radiation from inhaled radon and other alpha-emitting
particles.

In relation to other health effects from uranium mining, a study
published in 1992 examined birth data for over 13,000 Navajo children
born between 1964 and 1981 in Shiprock, New Mexico, in a region where
there are many tailings dumps. The study reported a statistically
significant increase in birth defects, stillbirths and illnesses
during infancy.

Nuclear Accidents
One of the most feared events associated with nuclear power is a loss
of coolant accident and melt-down as occurred at Chernobyl, with
widespread dispersion of radioactivity. We should remember that a
nuclear reactor houses vastly greater quantities of radioactivity than
that released in a nuclear weapon explosion.

The major radioisotopes present in a nuclear reactor core that are of
biological significance include caesium-137 (which mimics potassium
and is deposited in muscle), strontium-90 (which mimics calcium and is
therefore deposited mostly in bone), plutonium, and iodine-131. Iodine
is dominant in the first few weeks, and contaminates grass, and thence
cow's milk. After ingestion, it concentrates in the thyroid. After
Chernobyl, there was an unequivocal marked rise in the incidence of
thyroid cancer in the region. Caesium-137 exposes people both
externally, with gamma radiation from the ground which will last for
centuries, and internally through contaminated soil, vegetation and
food - primarily milk but also meat, fish and cereals.

Well, what do we know about the death toll from Chernobyl ? I'm going
to answer this mostly by reference to the UN Chernobyl Forum report
that was released in September 2005 by several UN agencies - including
the IAEA, the WHO and UNDP. The press release for the report in fact
reads as little more than a whitewash, and yet even the press release
gave an estimate of 4,000 excess Chernobyl-related deaths - far more
than the absurd figure of 40-50 deaths that we hear so often.

However the report itself gives a very different picture about
Chernobyl mortality from the press release. It lists predicted excess
cancer deaths among the different exposed populations (liquidators and
evacuees from different areas) but does not actually quote the total
of these deaths. If you do the sums yourself, it is 8,930 - a much
higher figure than the 4,000 in the press release.

However the report does not mention that the data exclude:

at least 600,000 of the liquidators (it includes figures for 200,000
only),
any consideration of health effects outside the Ukraine, Belarus and
Russia,
those born since 1986 and those yet to be born, and
any non-cancer effects.
These are all very glaring omissions.

Calculations that extrapolate from the Chernobyl Forum figures but
also include very conservative estimates for the above categories (but
not non-cancer effects other than in liquidators) give an estimate of
34,200-38,500 deaths. This also is likely to be an underestimate.

The Chernobyl Forum report totally ignores data from the Belarus
national cancer registry, despite the fact that these data were
published almost a year before the UN Chernobyl Forum report. The data
show an increase in cancer incidence, averaging 40%, in all regions,
most pronounced in the most heavily contaminated regions.

Reports from other sources have noted that infant leukemia rates in a
number of countries (including Greece and former West Germany) have
increased since Chernobyl, and that cancer incidence across Northern
Sweden has increased. Remember that the minimum latency period for
most solid cancers is at least 10-15 years, generally much longer, and
that most cancers that are or will be attributable to Chernobyl are
yet to occur.

In brief, we will never know the total death toll from Chernobyl, but
we can confidently state that it will be at the very least in the tens
of thousands if not much higher.

We should note here also the very low-key role played by the WHO in
relation to radiation health matters. Since 1959 there has been an
agreement between the WHO and the IAEA, which stipulates that the WHO
will defer to the IAEA in matters related to radiation health. In
other words, the WHO has lost its scientific independence on the
health impacts of nuclear power and is not a credible authority on
these matters.

In relation to the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania,
USA, we are told by the nuclear industry that the health effects were
either non-existent or negligible. However others disagree. 1,400
local people took a class action against the operators of the plant
alleging adverse health effects including severe congenital
malformations. However the judge dismissed the experts who were going
to testify in the case and then claimed that there was no evidence to
present to the jury. There was a settlement which included the
stipulation that there be no publicity given to the claims.

I'll mention only very briefly the matter of nuclear waste. Good
epidemiological data on the health impacts of exposure to various
levels of nuclear waste are lacking. As mentioned earlier, studies to
provide such data would be extraordinarily difficult to implement and
extremely large in scale and long in duration. We can only extrapolate
from what we do know about the effects of radiation exposure. In
addition we do know that not a single country has in place a
satisfactory long term nuclear waste disposal plan. Therefore the
first priority, as with any intractable problem, is prevention. We
must stop adding to the problem by creating more nuclear waste.

It is worth noting that as new knowledge becomes available on the
issue of nuclear waste, the dangers appear even greater. For example,
in January 2000 the publication "Science" reported that plutonium
reacts differently from previously believed and, when exposed to air
and water, over time becomes very soluble in water. This has obvious
implications for underground disposal of waste.

The final issue that must be mentioned in relation to the health
effects associated with nuclear power is the inextricable links with
nuclear weapons - not just the proliferation of these weapons, but the
very existence of 27,000 of them, the world's most destructive and
terrifying weapons. There is no doubt that the development of nuclear
weapons in a number of countries has been aided by so-called peaceful
nuclear technology, as others at this conference have discussed. I
will simply add that of all the unresolved threats to human health,
nuclear weapons remains undoubtedly one of the greatest and the most
urgent.

If a scientist speaks of gradualism, and points to many species that have
changed gradually, and cites that to be a product of mutations, even
during times when geography, that is fine so far as it goes. But let him
NOT OMIT telling me how rhinoceroses were, by comparison, less vulnerable
to gradualism.

Ragland,

If I ask a deeply committed advocate of natural selection why there were
changes in the lengths of giraffe's necks over a lot of millinea, the
regurge response is that the giraffes kept needing longer necks to reach
foliage higher than other animals could reach.

Ragland,

I have an issue with the gross inconsistency of the MANY  DIVERSE
rationales that have been tendered by many "experts" each speaking as though
from a cloud above -- if not Mt. Olympus, then certainly -- above the heads
of the ignorant masses of non-experts.

By 1900 there was a wide concensus among many fields of scientific inquiry
and speculation that there was a fundamental flaw in Darwin's concept of
natural selection, which was the SAME flaw in Lamarck's concept of
transmission of acquired characteristics; which was the SAME flaw in Herbert
Spencer's notion of "survival of the fittest," which... you get the idea...
was:

NONE  OF  THEM  HAD  COME  UP  WITH  THE  MECHANISM  OR  MECHANISMS  PER
SE.

You and I know that Darwin kept REVISING his "Origin of the Species" in an
effort to "adapt" it to the objections of his peers.  And historians who
have read the eleven or so REVISIONS have observed that, with each and every
rewrite his ideas became more, and more and more and more... guess what...
LAMARCKIAN.

When Mendel's work got resurrected (roughly a half century after it first
came out), as a result of its being perceived by an increasing number of
theorists and critics to offer the missing "mechanism," that (if I've got it
right from my reading) was what enabled the New Darwinian Synthesis (also
called Neo-Darwinism).  And some historians (if I've got this right)
indicate that up to then there was a wide split between the preference among
many leading biologists for the classical Darwinian view of "natural
selection" and the paleontologists' preference for a more Lamarckian view.
Putting it very succinctly (hence in risk of distortion by simplistication)
paleontologists and biologists had a new synthesis which both could see some
possible sense in.

Today, if we were to say that *THE  MECHANISM  WHEREBY  NATURAL SELECTION
TRANSPIRES* is clear and present and of a sufficient degree of detailed
verification to be termed a "law" (in the scientific sense) that would be AT
VERY  BEST  premature... and, at WORST, it would be presumptious and could
turn out to be untenable somewhere downstream from today.

This old layman has said it before and shall say it again, "Science is NOT
dogma.  And deciples of a dogma, no matter how many experts might subscribe
to it, is  not "top rate" science.

The angrier any entrenched advocate gets upon being accused of bias, the
more this old layman is reminded of the saying among political analysits
that, "When they say it's not about the money... it's about the money."  I
use that analogy not because money is at issue (at least not in every
instance) but because certain GROUP  CONSENSUSES  as to the claiming of one
school of thought asserting their favorite presumptions against members of
members of another veritable cult of opinion, impress this old coot as more
of a "shouting match" and less of an actual search for answers... which is
what I would guess that "top rate" science should be about.  And the
comparison is that when someone says it's not about a grouping of members of
a common opinion, that very well might be EXACTLY what it is about.

What ever happened to "I don't know.. but I'll tell you what I THINK," and
without opponents trying to enshrine their "opinion" in an ivory ego temple,
and put it on a pedestal.

If it were simple, obvious, and confirmed in minute detail, then there would
not BE any debate.  And a many a person would not have to be called "stupid"
or "intransigent" or some such derogatory nomenclature for not bowing his
head in abject subjection.

If someone is going to point to a human and tell me that natural selection
by way of selfish genes made him smart enough to out-survive other critters,
then that person should not mind my asking, why the same did not happen to,
say, opossums.  I read in a publication for game biologists that the very
most essential characteristic of Opossum Virginialis' which most accounts
for its adaptation to multiple geographical areas and invironments is the
fact that it is too stupid to get into habitat and food source ruts.  More
specifically, the article informs that the cerebral cavity of a Virginia
Opossum, by comparison to other species indicates that it is "playing with
only about two-thirds of a deck."

So what have we here.  Smart out-survives dumb for humans; but dumb
out-survives smart for opossums.

Oh, the rationalizing might go, I'm not looking at the WHOLE picture.  What
works for an opossum works for the niche or niches they fill, but does not
work for the niche or niches humans fill.  Get the picture.  If one STARTS
OUT  with the presumption that natural selection works because of
competition, then the way you PROVE that is by coming up with a
rationalization for why hot is cold and black is white and smart pays when
it pays and dumb pays when it pays...

If a scientist speaks of gradualism, and points to many species that have
changed gradually, and cites that to be a product of mutations, even during
times when geography, that is fine so far as it goes.  But let him NOT  OMIT
telling me how rhinoceroses were, by comparison, less vulnerable to
gradualism.

I'll stop.  There are far too many rationalizations built upon
rationalizations built upon rationalizations for this poor old man to keep
up with... except to observe that as gaps appear in one's hypothesization,
if he is totally committed to it, all that is necessary is to beg the
presumption and gerrymander an explanation as to how it applies to the
"seeming" exception.

g

Ragland,

I have an issue with the gross inconsistency of the MANY  DIVERSE
rationales that have been tendered by many "experts" each speaking as though
from a cloud above -- if not Mt. Olympus, then certainly -- above the heads
of the ignorant masses of non-experts.

By 1900 there was a wide concensus among many fields of scientific inquiry
and speculation that there was a fundamental flaw in Darwin's concept of
natural selection, which was the SAME flaw in Lamarck's concept of
transmission of acquired characteristics; which was the SAME flaw in Herbert
Spencer's notion of "survival of the fittest," which... you get the idea...
was:

NONE  OF  THEM  HAD  COME  UP  WITH  THE  MECHANISM  OR  MECHANISMS  PER
SE.

You and I know that Darwin kept REVISING his "Origin of the Species" in an
effort to "adapt" it to the objections of his peers.  And historians who
have read the eleven or so REVISIONS have observed that, with each and every
rewrite his ideas became more, and more and more and more... guess what...
LAMARCKIAN.

When Mendel's work got resurrected (roughly a half century after it first
came out), as a result of its being perceived by an increasing number of
theorists and critics to offer the missing "mechanism," that (if I've got it
right from my reading) was what enabled the New Darwinian Synthesis (also
called Neo-Darwinism).  And some historians (if I've got this right)
indicate that up to then there was a wide split between the preference among
many leading biologists for the classical Darwinian view of "natural
selection" and the paleontologists' preference for a more Lamarckian view.

Putting it very succinctly (hence in risk of distortion by simplistication)
paleontologists and biologists had a new synthesis which both could see some
possible sense in.

Today, if we were to say that *THE  MECHANISM  WHEREBY  NATURAL SELECTION
TRANSPIRES* is clear and present and of a sufficient degree of detailed
verification to be termed a "law" (in the scientific sense) that would be AT
VERY  BEST  premature... and, at WORST, it would be presumptious and could
turn out to be untenable somewhere downstream from today.

This old layman has said it before and shall say it again, "Science is NOT
dogma.  And deciples of a dogma, no matter how many experts might subscribe
to it, is  not "top rate" science.

The angrier any entrenched advocate gets upon being accused of bias, the
more this old layman is reminded of the saying among political analysits
that, "When they say it's not about the money... it's about the money."  I
use that analogy not because money is at issue (at least not in every
instance) but because certain GROUP  CONSENSUSES  as to the claiming of one
school of thought asserting their favorite presumptions against members of
members of another veritable cult of opinion, impress this old coot as more
of a "shouting match" and less of an actual search for answers... which is
what I would guess that "top rate" science should be about.  And the
comparison is that when someone says it's not about a grouping of members of
a common opinion, that very well might be EXACTLY what it is about.

What ever happened to "I don't know.. but I'll tell you what I THINK," and
without opponents trying to enshrine their "opinion" in an ivory ego temple,
and put it on a pedestal.

If it were simple, obvious, and confirmed in minute detail, then there would
not BE any debate.  And a many a person would not have to be called "stupid"
or "intransigent" or some such derogatory nomenclature for not bowing his
head in abject subjection.

If someone is going to point to a human and tell me that natural selection
by way of selfish genes made him smart enough to out-survive other critters,
then that person should not mind my asking, why the same did not happen to,
say, opossums.  I read in a publication for game biologists that the very
most essential characteristic of Opossum Virginialis' which most accounts
for its adaptation to multiple geographical areas and invironments is the
fact that it is too stupid to get into habitat and food source ruts.  More
specifically, the article informs that the cerebral cavity of a Virginia
Opossum, by comparison to other species indicates that it is "playing with
only about two-thirds of a deck."

So what have we here.  Smart out-survives dumb for humans; but dumb
out-survives smart for opossums.

Oh, the rationalizing might go, I'm not looking at the WHOLE picture.  What
works for an opossum works for the niche or niches they fill, but does not
work for the niche or niches humans fill.  Get the picture.  If one STARTS
OUT  with the presumption that natural selection works because of
competition, then the way you PROVE that is by coming up with a
rationalization for why hot is cold and black is white and smart pays when
it pays and dumb pays when it pays...

If a scientist speaks of gradualism, and points to many species that have
changed gradually, and cites that to be a product of mutations, even during
times when geography, that is fine so far as it goes.  But let him NOT  OMIT
telling me how rhinoceroses were, by comparison, less vulnerable to
gradualism.

I'll stop.  There are far too many rationalizations built upon
rationalizations built upon rationalizations for this poor old man to keep
up with... except to observe that as gaps appear in one's hypothesization,
if he is totally committed to it, all that is necessary is to beg the
presumption and gerrymander an explanation as to how it applies to the
"seeming" exception.

Hey I just watched the Illusionist. I'm happy. Seriously though what
would be the limited effects on the ecology and biology if a few
nuclear bombs were detonated on populations? Would we just see alot of
radiation death and cancers? What would be the effects on the
worldwide climate?

I think we tried that experiment in August, 1945. The answer was "not

Genomic instability posited the worse case scenario and no one has
responded. I find it hard to believe no germ cell damage was done to
the Japanese, Marshallese and victims of Cherynobyl. Are germ cells
really that robust? Have any experiments been done on animals and is
there a threshold at which radiation levels induce changes in germ
cells?

Michael Ragland

Genomic instability posited the worse case scenario and no one has
responded. I find it hard to believe no germ cell damage was done to
the Japanese, Marshallese and victims of Cherynobyl. Are germ cells
really that robust?  Have any experiments been done on animals and is
there a threshold at which radiation levels induce changes in germ
cells?

Michael Ragland

Take a look at: The effects of inbreeding on Japanese children [by]
William J. Schull and James V. Neel published in 1965.
Neel and Schull were with the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, which,
if I remember correctly, was formed right after the war to study the
effects of the bomb on the Japanese. My memory of this is pretty
sketchy, but I think they determined that there were very few
detectable mutations affecting viability among the children of bomb
survivors. (The strategy used was the compare the mortality of
children of consanguineous marriages with those of outbred marriages
among the bomb survivors in Hiroshima.)

...
How can random mutations come up with a linear progression from four toes to
a hoof in front and three toes to a hoof in the back? When we think long
and hard about it, what were the odds of a whole SERIES of mutations coming <