# Nuclear radiation



## yankee joe (Mar 16, 2013)

I ran into a tidbit of information yesterday wile reading an article on the Chernobyl reactor meltdown. The writer said that this area is nearly devoid of all butterflies, grasshoppers and bees. We have been having nuclear accidents around the world since the early 50es. The first one in this country to my knowledge was Saxton PA in 1956 I know because I grew up there. Then Three Mile Island in the late 70es. Russia has had at least 5 big ones Chernobyl being the biggest. In 2011 an other large one in Japan plus many above ground tests over the years. I have heard that bees have been in decline around the world since the early 50es. Has any one ever done a study on radiation and bee decline. This may not be all of the problem but may contribute to it. If any body has any information about this please pass it along.


----------



## ScubaMark (Jan 6, 2009)

Ionizing radiation is ubiquitous from natural sources. We live in a sea of natural radiation all the time. The increase in background radiation due to anthropogenic sources peaked at about 0.15 mSv per year in 1963 and by the year 2000 the worldwide dose from these sources has decreased to only 0.005 mSv per year. If you look at the actual research paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22707037) then you will find it is dreadfully incorrect to say that ANY area near an accident site is "devoid" of butterflies, grasshoppers and bees. Only in areas that were HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE was it even noticed a "depressed" population. And "depressed" in those studies were only marginally statistically significant. Even when plotted on a log scale which tends to greatly graphically amplify statistical variation, the results are not particularly significant except where insane levels of radioactive contamination still exists. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/3/356.full?cited-by=yes&legid=roybiolett;5/3/356

I have grown weary of the chicken-little hyperventilating.

The main problem with bees today is the same as if we expected engineered broilers to survive in the homestead backyard or bob veal to survive on the free range. Engineered bee genetics for commercial farming is wholly in adequate for survival on a homestead (hobby farm) or in the wild. Just as the genetics of any commercially kept farm animal requires diligent human support with hormones and antibiotics and pesticides, so will bees. If you really want to "save the bees", then stop buying commercial queens, take the cut in honey production that you will certainly lose, live with more swarming, live with meaner bees, live with more propolis, live with bees that are more "runny" on the comb, live with bees that are not as compliant with comb building, live with bees that are in general more "wild". It is the same with any "heirloom" genetics, you are going to have a more "robust" crop, but it will be less "perfect".

Above all, please stop all the eco-radical hand wringing and step back and actually THINK.


----------



## Aerindel (Apr 14, 2012)

I doubt it. Local radiation may have been bad in Pripyat for a few years but everything that I have heard says that the their are more animals there now than there where before the accident.

There is also the lifespan of bees and flowers to consider, both are short lived. All of the planets and insects exposed to radiation would have died and the radioactive particles would have been washed down into the soil decades ago.


----------



## Slow Modem (Oct 6, 2011)

There's a big difference in the US accidents and the foreign accidents. Especially Japan and Chernobyl. In the US accidents, minimal radiation was released . In the foreign releases, there was lots of radiation released over a long time. So there's no danger to bees (so far) in the US from radiation.

As previous posters have stated, we're bombarded by some radiation all the time. But it's harmless and our bodies have adapted to it (otherwise nothing could live on the Earth).


----------

