comScore
Uncategorized Tuesday, August 14th 2012 at 7:40 pm

Fukushima Site Producing Mutated Butterflies

By ( ) Comments

Today’s reminder that nuclear accidents stay with us much, much longer than we might care to remember them: Butterflies in the vicinity of the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan are mutating. A study published online last week in the journal Science Reports found that pale blue grass butterflies are common in much of Asia, but those born near the site of the meltdown are coming into the world with severe physical deformities. Mutations have been found in 12% of the specimens examined by researchers at the University of the Ryukyus in nearby Okinawa. While some of the mutations, like unusual spotting patterns on wings, are mostly innocuous, others are more severe, ranging from forked antennae, to twisted legs, to bent and useless wings. Some are suffering from mutations that leave them unable to even leave their cocoons.

While this doesn’t close the book on the dangers of low-dose radiation, there’s no good news to be found here, and plenty of bad. The severity of the animals’ mutations correlates with their proximity to radiation hotspots. These hotspots remain common in the area around the infamous Fukushima Daiichi reactor that suffered a critical failure in March of last year.

Even worse news? These butterflies were captured six months after the release of radiation into the surrounding area, and suffered from twice as many abnormalities and mutations as butterflies caught by the same team of researchers just two months after the meltdown. That suggests that while the levels of radiation in the area are still dropping, the effects of that radiation are getting more severe as butterflies consume plants that have been tainted with radiation.

It also points to a troubling possibility — that the butterflies may be passing genetic defects on to subsequent generations. That inheritance of genetic damage is one of the major potential dangers of low-dose radiation, and while the jury is still out on whether that’s exactly what’s happening here, it doesn’t paint a rosy picture for anyone or anything living near the site. Only time will tell, but there’s no reason to think this is the end of the story on the long term repercussions of the Fukushima disaster. And it won’t just be butterflies that are affected.

Anybody need a drink yet? Yeah, us too.

(via LiveScience)

Relevant to your interests

Filed Under | • • • • • • • • •
  • Dr Coene

    “It also points to a troubling possibility — that the butterflies may be passing genetic defects on to subsequent generations.”

    There is also a slim chance that those genetic “defects” work to their advantage.

  • Jack Bond

    Yes, being immobile is such an advantage.

  • Ron Pickens

    The original article discusses butterflies that ate contaminated vegetation. Bioaccumulating radioisotopes is quite different than exposure. Obviously the amount required for the same concentration to produce similar effects in a mouse (let alone person) would be enormous by comparison. The “low dose” levels that are listed in the article as equivalent weren’t seen anywhere near Fukushima Daiichi. That’s a good thing since those levels are about half those found in places Denver Colorado, (which would be a mutant zombie playground if that correlation were true).

    I do recommend you have a drink. Not because of the dangers of radiation (which IS NOT harmless) but the dangers of sloppy and poor reporting. 

  • Depot

    please stop watching flyman…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-E-Screws-Jr/5200506 Bruce E. Screws Jr.

    How long until Mothra becomes real?

  • Marcy Wallis

    There is some serious NON-science going on here. The reason this “research” is completely BOGUS report is as follows:

    1.Natural background – every location has some level of natural background radiation. The report fails to provide a baseline for any of the locations.

    2. Sample size – looking at the results from the May collection in Table 2 it is surprising how high the abnormality rate for adult butterflies is. The abnormalities in the wings from female butterflies at Fukushima are 20%. That sounds significant – yet what they neglect to say is this is for a sample of 5 female butterflies. In other words – a statistically insignificant sample! The radiation levels at Fukushima were 1/3 to ½ of those from two other sites in the study where the abnormalities in the male and female wings were zero. This is poor data analysis and representation since the results were then smeared into the overall results without qualifying that there did not appear to be any correlation between radiation level and damage to the wings based on a comparison of cities.

    3. Motomiya, located 58.8 km from Fukushima, had roughly 3 times the radiation dose rate as compared to the Fukushima samples (3.09 and 2.73 μSv/hr vs 1.13 and 1.25 μSv/hr), but had no abnormalities out of the 11 butterflies collected in May – 2 female and 9 males. Yet as the report notes the “mortality rates of larvae, prepupae, and pupae and the abnormality rate of adults were high for Iwaki, Hirono, Motomiya, and Fukushima”. For Motomiya – that implies the offspring from two butterflies – neither of which had abnormalities. Overall the sample sizes for female butterflies are very low yet the authors make far reaching conclusions about their off-spring:

    a. Fukushima – 5 females in May; 8 females in Sept (radiation levels around 1.2 May and 0.7 site 1 and 2.43 μSv/hr site 2)
    b. Iwaki – 6 females in May; 22 females in Sept (radiation levels around 0.4 μSv/hr)
    c. Hirono – 5 females in May; 6 females in May (radiation levels 1.3 μSv/hr in May and .85 μSv/hr in Sept)
    d. Motomiya – 2 females in May; 9 females in September (radiation levels of around 2.9 μSv/hr in May and 1.6 in Sept)4. Mixing apples and oranges- The charts look good, but only the ones that correlate to apparently predetermined conclusions are shown. For example:
    Figure 1 with my chart on right – shows that for F1 (offspring from the first females) offspring that there is no correlation between radiation levels and abnormalities. Therefore as the data did not correlate to radiation levels the author’s chose instead to show the abnormalities as a function of the distance from the nuclear power plant as shown in the graph to the left. MayF1 first generation abnormalities # of female butterfliesGround radiation dose μSv/hrGround radiation dose cal’d averaged μSv/hrTotal abnormality rate (%)Shiroishi10.320.3224Fukushima51.13, 1.251.1944Motomiya23.0, 2.72.8549Hirono51.31.357Iwaki60.46, 0.60.5365Takahagi50.3, 0.40.3535Mito20.18, 0.140.1637Tsukuba50.16, 0.15, 0.17, 0.160.1639
    The F1 abnormalities data for the May collection of butterflies they have dose rates of 0.16 μSv/hr with abnormality rates of 39%, dose rates of 0.53 μSv/hr with abnormalities of 65%, and Fukushima with dose rates of 1.19% and abnormalities of 44%. The data is just as bad for the September collection. There is no correlation.
    Per the report: “Somewhat unexpectedly, the half-eclosion time and half-pupation time were correlated with the distance from the NPP but not with the ground radiation dose (data data not shown). The reason for this outcome is not apparent, but it may be that distance values are more resistant to measurement deviations. Dose measurements in a given collection site could sometimes vary more than one order of magnitude within a several-meter range due to uneven distribution of radionuclides in the field.”
    In explaining the fact that their data does not correlate to radiation levels  this would actually negate their other results saying there is a correlation.  Therefore if you look at the results for the F1 generation and the abnormalities beginning with Shiroishi – they have one female butterfly. One.The authors do note that the results vary as distance from the reactor rather than by dose rate but do not consider other possibilities related to the tsunami that happened concurrently. Could there have been damage to the butterfly population related to the storm or chemicals released in the storm that have nothing to do with radiation?
     5. Figure 2 – to the left is Figure 4 b from the report which shows a nice correlation between ground radiation level and abnormality rate – yet  they don’t show you the equivalent curve for the May data. Why? Possibly because it shows that the abnormalities are just as high, if not higher, for low radiation levels as for high radiation levels. I plotted their data and show the two curves side-by-side. While the September collection data shows a nice curve, the May collection data does not.7.      Also –they change one of the two collection sites in Fukushima in September to one with much higher radiation levels and they average it with the now lower levels at site one. Most of the butterflies are from site 1 where the radiation levels are 0.71 μSv/hr versus site 2 which is 2.43 μSv/hr – yet they AVERAGE the two together to get their nice curve. If they were to be consistent they would show the number of abnormalities at each site since the radiation levels are significantly different. But they include no qualifications or comments.In general this report tries to make something out of poor sample size and incomplete statistics. They neglect to note that when they are drawing strong conclusions about generational affects that they:may only be talking about a sample size of from 1 to 5 female butterflies for a specific site,
    that the results do not correlate with the radiation dose levels,
    don’t consider other possible factors as to why abnormalities track with distance from reactor rather than radiation levels.  
    7.      Also –they change one of the two collection sites in Fukushima in September to one with much higher radiation levels and they average it with the now lower levels at site one. Most of the butterflies are from site 1 where the radiation levels are 0.71 μSv/hr versus site 2 which is 2.43 μSv/hr – yet they AVERAGE the two together to get their nice curve. If they were to be consistent they would show the number of abnormalities at each site since the radiation levels are significantly different. But they include no qualifications or comments.
    In general this report tries to make something out of poor sample size and incomplete statistics. They neglect to note that when they are drawing strong conclusions about generational affects that they:
    may only be talking about a sample size of from 1 to 5 female butterflies for a specific site,that the results do not correlate with the radiation dose levels,don’t consider other possible factors as to why abnormalities track with distance from reactor rather than radiation levels.
      

  • Marcy Wallis

    Crap… The chart image didn’t come out right. Still, enough other valid points to start the discussion.

  • Dr Coene

    That’s how evolution works, bro.

    Some mutations help. Some don’t.

    Natural selection is going to continue.

  • JackBond

    Yeah. Natural selection will kill off the mutated ones and the healthy ones will remain unchanged. No superpowered magical species swapping needed.