digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Nuked coral reef bounces back

environment.newscientist.com — Half a century after being subjected to more than 20 nuclear tests, Bikini Atoll boasts a flourishing coral reef – but the coconuts are radioactive

show profanity settings
expand all
  • MadScientist68, on 04/14/2008, -9/+31Something similar is true of St Helen's, and yet we get all worried that some kind of environmental disaster is going to kill us all.
    • Insightful, on 04/14/2008, -14/+6How much of those radioactive coconuts have you had?
    • StaticThunder, on 04/14/2008, -1/+16I don't worry about disaster befalling the human species, I worry about a disaster befalling US. Its all well and good that millenia after a nuclear apocalypse the Eloi run around happily except when the Morlocks come out.
    • yikiad, on 04/14/2008, -6/+8rtfa:
      "When I put the Geiger counter near a coconut, which accumulates radioactive material from the soil, it went berserk," says Beger.
      • superkendall, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3And yet you'll notice the coconuts are growing quite well - it's just that they are radioactive. What are you trying to say?
        • theOster, on 04/15/2008, -0/+12what i'm trying to say, is "I for one welcome our new Radioactive Coconut Overlords"
      • Sophistifunk, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Sow where do I get one of these "sure-to-give-me-super-powers" coconuts?
        • StaticThunder, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2COCONUT MAN! He fights crime by dropping nuts from great height on his enemies or showering them with...

          with sidekick Banana boy...

          nevermind.
    • Philodox, on 04/14/2008, -1/+19Except that Volcanic ash is rich in nutrients that can be used by organisms. Craters left by nuclear explosions are chock full of delicious radiation.
    • Harabeck, on 04/14/2008, -4/+1A nuclear war could destroy the entire war, not just a mountain or reef.

      An environmental disaster is also possible if it occurs fast enough, there are plenty of mass instinctions in our past.
      • Aidje, on 04/14/2008, -2/+4Gotta watch out for those mass instinctions. They'll sneak up on you.
      • goldfishey, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7Harabeck, I think your spellchecker has gone rogue.
    • threemagic, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5There's some real-estate available near Chernobyl, you could buy it cheap and move in.... how long ago was that?
    • caramba420, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Yeah! People have been trying to tell me some nonsense about St. Helens being a volcanic eruption, but you and I know the truth. That some evil villain had his secret volcano base there, and James Bond nuked it.
      • superkendall, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Dude - it was obviously a 9/11 pre-test by Bush to make sure the explosives worked!
    • groonk, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1said disaster probably will kill *us*. or turn us into Hideous Mutant Freeks, thirsting for the blood of everything.

      *the Earth,* however, will be just fine.
    • stix213, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5Well, I don't think that you would have been too happy if you actually were at Bikini Island during the actually testing...... This is more synonymous with people returning to earth 50 years after a world wide disaster.
      • brufleth, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2...and still being unable to eat any of the food and still experiencing higher than normal incidence of cancers.
    • stfucupcake, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1the coconuts are radioactive there as well?
    • caramba420, on 04/15/2008, -2/+0Dude, people live in Hawaii. Everyone knows that's where Xenu nuked the all the Thetans and imprisoned them in human bodies. Yet, plants and animals survive just fine there. Therefore, it is proven that atomic bombs are good for the environment. NUKE THE WHALES!!
  • theotheragentm, on 04/14/2008, -6/+49Think if girls wore coconut bikinis, we could manage to finally get a real life three-boob lady like in Total Recall?
    • StaticThunder, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5Radiation burns are sexy.
    • Totalchaos02, on 04/14/2008, -1/+25Either that or breast cancer....
    • web2pointYo, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Quaid!
    • cdigioia, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4"No no, with one on the back...for dancing"
      - Al Bundy
    • lebruf, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3a stretch on humour but I'll give it the charity digg
    • stix213, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Now you are thinking!!!! Nukes for everyone!!!! (except if your government policy includes the word "Jihad")
    • trollhunter, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0yeah, cos two boobs aren't enough... /sarc
  • SEGA4life, on 04/14/2008, -2/+16Thats the power of salt water.

    Oxi Clean's got nothing on it.
  • FeartheKnighted, on 04/14/2008, -5/+18Not many people know the story behind the bikini swimsuit (it was named after the Bikini Atoll, not the other way around).

    Interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini#History
    • DaviDTC, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6Thanks for the link. Very educational. Never knew they had a stick-on style of microkini that attaches with adhesive.
    • max420, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5I clicked on the link, and read the WHOOOLE DAMN ARTICLE. Even though I don't really care about bikini's in general, they certainly have an interesting history. Kudos for the link! I don't know why people are digging you down.
      • gsxrjason, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3This is great: "Two-piece swimsuits started appearing in the US when the U.S. Government ordered a 10 percent reduction in the fabric used in woman's swimwear in 1943 as part of wartime rationing."
        • kindrobot, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4They just don't regulate like they used to, huh?
  • sockpuppets, on 04/14/2008, -12/+19I for one welcome our radioactive coconut eating coral reef overlords.
  • DBLaise, on 04/14/2008, -5/+5Radioactive Coconuts?
  • killbert24, on 04/14/2008, -13/+5I've got a lo-ve-ly bunch of coconuts (They're radioactive!)
    There they are a standing in a row. (One, two, nuke your family)
    Big ones, small ones, some as deformed as your head (And bigger)
    Give 'em a twist, a flick of the wrist, thats what the scientist said.
    • ZaZ2137, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5Creative, but it doesn't rhyme like the original.
  • gcman94, on 04/14/2008, -7/+0I really needed to know that.
  • BOFH2, on 04/14/2008, -4/+51Honestly I do believe that we underestimate the earth's ability to repair itself. This does not mean we should all go do stupid crap thought.
    • sockpuppets, on 04/14/2008, -1/+11Step away from your keyboard and give Digg time to heal.
    • desuexmachina, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2I don't underestimate it at all.
      It's survived massive ice ages, huge asteroid strikes, enormous volcanic activity, whatever killed all the trilobites and a T. Rex. Remember when the entire frigging moon split off from an asteroid bombardment? LOL.
      Anyhow, The Earth survives pretty well no matter what happens.
      • jnava121, on 04/15/2008, -1/+0what about the Death Star ?
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Don't forget when Xenu nuked the Thetans 75 million years ago and then L. Ron Hubbard woke up and wrote down the dream he remembered.

        If only he had more dreams about gravity or relativity or warp engines... then we wouldn't be simply limited to sketchy theories based on mere scientific study and facts.
    • tcip, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Some people, including scientists (but with some the term must be used loosely) want to blame everything wrong with the earth on mankind. Earth also produced us. It got along just fine before we arrived on the scene and it will get along fine without us should we proceed annihilate ourselves.
      • thebellmaster1x, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Yes, but that's no excuse to start dumping megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It's not the Earth that worries me when it comes to global warming. I KNOW that the Earth will pull out fine. The thing is, it'll take a while for it to recover, and unlike the planet, we won't be doing so hot (please pardon the pun) during the recovery period. The real concern is whether WE will pull out fine.
        • desuexmachina, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Who cares if we die off, if we can't stop this radical climate change from happening then why should we be preserved, especially if we're responsible. I don't think we're completely responsible, but why do we need 6.5 billion of us on the planet, most of us starving to death, fighting over scraps of good land and diminishing resources.
        • twinklyJesus, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I suggest you hold your breath and do your part to reduce CO2 emissions.
  • vroom101, on 04/14/2008, -1/+10Bikini Atoll, 11-megaton thermonuclear bomb explosion on 26 March 1954, Operation Castle (Video), ROMEO Event: http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-2005030 ...
    Via photo 4 -> http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20050304.htm
  • LoveAndSeagulls, on 04/14/2008, -7/+3radioactive coconuts...
    radioactive coconut bras...
    WOO RADIOACTIVE BOOBS
  • Balath, on 04/14/2008, -1/+8When we humans nuke each other, nature's going to look at each other and give a collective shrug, then continue on its way.
    • carpespasm, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2after a few eons of life not having such an easy time and a weird radioactive layer sitting in the geological record for the bird people to ponder over the origin of. It's also probably a lot easier to get life back up and running when you have the entire worlds oceans as a rinse for your blowed-up atoll. when it's all radioactive there's a harder time getting it clean i would imagine
  • TJ11240, on 04/14/2008, -4/+11See it while you can. Coral will be climate change's first casualty.
    • ebcreasoner, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1I dugg you up, but I do not think you get the point of the story.
      • kindrobot, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2I think it's just as safe to say he DID and that he ALSO had a comment.
  • petebert, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1coral reef soon to be radioactive villain
  • jstem1994, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2Benny Hill thinks you have a lovely bunch of coconuts.
  • Jovensdesciple, on 04/14/2008, -4/+3I've always told people that nukes were good for the environment... for once me and hippies agree.
    • Androne, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2"They estimate that the diversity of species represents about 65% of what was present before the atomic tests." Nukes aren't good for the environment the article is saying the reef is recovering.
    • Grok22, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2I think he means Nukes will destroy all humans and then the earth can finally heal.
  • rmxz, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Radioactive wastelands probably end up less damaging to the environment than if the islands were made into some tourist attraction full of hotels, gas stations, walmarts and mcdonalds's.

    Perhaps the solution to environmentalism and power and global warming is to build radioactive nuclear plants in all the places we'd most want to preserve - at least it'd keep the people out that probably do more harm than the radiation.
    • jnava121, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1mmmm..... double cheeseburger... throws wrapper away , that is why they put the McDonalds inside the Walmart which has gas stations outside......

      Thinking Greener... lol...
  • centran, on 04/14/2008, -1/+28So... Sponge Bob is based a true life story of a sea sponge and starfish that became sentient thanks to radioactive mutation?
    • ZaZ2137, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6What an interesting theory....
    • BoneheadFarker, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7Well, if it can work for 4 turtles...
      • jnava121, on 04/15/2008, -2/+0turtles aren't already sentient? , damn you FLOOD , damn you to hell HALO !!!!
  • caramba420, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5Your mom's coconuts are radioactive.
  • Bkaufman, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3This reminds me of the story that was on the front page a few months ago about Chernobyl, and how the area around the plant was flourishing. I guess radiation isn't as bad for the environment as we think? (still pretty bad for us though).
    • pixelguru, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Actually, radiation is bad for the environment, but humans are far worse. If you substitute radiation for humans, the environment appears to get better, when in fact it's still f*cked.
      • Spartycus, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Life tends to find a way to survive. We tend to forget that the sun itself is constantly barraging us with radiation and that there have been many times in the earths history that the planet was bathed in much higher levels of radiation from the sun than we currently experience.
        From an evolutionary standpoint these periods of high exposure might have encouraged dramatic increases in mutation that we have all benefited from.
        Unfortunately, this doesn't mean that it wasn't extremely harmful to the established organisms beforehand...
    • carpespasm, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Animals and plants can survive there for sure, but I can't see populations of animals that live only in the radioactive chernobyl site living as long as their cousins in another county, and I would imagine that over the long term the detriment to their DNA from the radiation would leave them messed up.
    • nullenigma, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Some interesting things I've been reading lately. BBC Horizon's program "Nuclear Nightmares" piqued my interest
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining#Dangers_t ...
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4917526.stm
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_m ...

      The program went on to say that directly confirmed deaths from Chernobyl numbered about 54. The WHO estimates that the total of all deaths (ones that can't be proven) number around 9,000. Greenpeace's own numbers put the figures at 200,000, but the numbers seemed more like a knee-jerk reaction to the lower estimates by the official Chernobyl forum.
      The BBC program put forth a fairly convincing argument that radiation hormesis might even be true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis , but I haven't personally read enough about that to know for sure. There are good links in the wiki article.

      For me personally, Nuclear power is looking a lot safer than the consequences of global warming and the millions of deaths annually from air pollution.
    • stix213, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Yes, after the initial die off immediately following the accident life is doing quite well there.
  • hiplobonoxa, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1it seems that for the overall health of an ecosystem, the benefit of keeping humans away far outweighs the cost of being radioactive. maybe we should try it with the whole planet.
    • InRussetShadows, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1We should do precisely that! You first!
  • odalaigh, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6Isn't this where spongebob squarepants lives? Bikini bottom. Talking radioactive undersea creatures. makes sense!
  • apextek, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7just posing a question.... what would happen if we did nuclear testing in the middle of the ocean of plastic garbage? would it vaporize the plastic and be a safe area in years? would it make the area worse? better? just curious seeing as no-one has a good solution to get rid of the collected plastics that will eventually poison us.
    • Spire3660, on 04/14/2008, -4/+0You do realize when you 'vaporize' something, it doesnt just magically cease to exist right?
      • Spartycus, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4Actually, in the way we understand it, vaporizing something in a nuclear blast does make it go away. It literally breaks the base atoms apart and releases a huge amount of energy in the process. In a nuclear explosion (not atomic mind you) it even goes so far as to create new elements from the base atoms...
        This is why you are being dugg down.
        • frnzkfk, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
          fission and (in "hydrogen bombs") fusion takes place. through the former a great amount of energy is released by breaking large atoms apart, the protons (and other stuffs) that make up the atoms dont transform into "e=mc2"; however, the "mass" which is transformed into energy has already been transformed and before being split is used to hold the protons together (nuclear strong force). the amount of mass that turn into energy is extremely small comparted to the amount of mass which is vaporized (ie turned to gas, not "disapeared" (probably sublimated actually)) by the heat given off. in the later, a small amount of mass in the center of the explosion gets hot enough for nuclear fussion to take place where to protons hit each other and some of their mass is transformed into energy (to hold them together) but the process also gives off alot of the energy not used to bind them (hence the sun...)

          people are idiots and thats why he is being dugg down.
      • stix213, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3About 100,000 Japanese magically ceased to exist last time we used them, isn't that proof?
        • BikerDude69, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Truely tragic and should be learned from.
    • Grok22, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1recycle?
  • caramba420, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Ironically, the fact that fishing there is illegal due to the radiation has probably had a great effect on the biodiversity.
  • jabberwolf, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5You put the lime in the coconut ... and call me in da' morning !
  • santaliqueur, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Nuked? Why won't anyone think of the coral reeves!
  • tekhak, on 04/14/2008, -9/+4Wait! I thought Enviormental Scientist said that Reef's take hundreds, if not thousands of years to grow?


    Hmmm.. more proof of a Short Earth.
    • santaliqueur, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6Where is this "more" you speak of?
  • Rosco, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3Gamera!!
  • FongoBongo, on 04/14/2008, -7/+2Somehow this reminds me of the family guy episode where everyone gets super human abilities, except this time with coral.
  • rustyiron, on 04/14/2008, -6/+1Okay, so what happens when one of those radioactive coconuts drifts to the coast of the US and some kid finds it?
    • DutchGuilder, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1He'll send a rescue boat for Gilligan and the others, the Professor's plan having finally worked.
    • RoboRay, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4I think it would have to be carried there by a swallow.
    • slightlygifted, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4he'll try and eat it and will get throat cancer.
    • EwMo, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2I don't think you realize where Bikini Atoll is...
  • Linium, on 04/15/2008, -4/+0In a twist of fate the death of civilization due to a nuclear world war might be the only way to save the earth from man made climate change.
  • flipmeat, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3There used to be this island called Elugelab... It ain't there kid, it's been totally blown away.
  • Spartycus, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3We tend to think of radiation as a blanket bad thing. While its true that high levels of it can kill, what is lethal to complex organisms (such as humans) may prove relatively harmless to simpler organisms.
    Once the radiation levels dropped below what was harmful for the coral, the reef was given relative safety from larger organisms that might have hurt its development.
  • darny, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3How weird does the title and concept seem today...who on earth today would actually nuke a coral reef?

    I bet if anyone back then raised any issues about the practice they would shunned as unpatriotic.
  • stix213, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3(Homer voice) mmMMMMmmmmmm... Radioactive Coconuts... gglllaaahhhalllll..... (drooling)
  • crazyazn5, on 04/15/2008, -1/+0What, radioactive coconuts? Ahh, and I wanted to go visit. Then again I heard you could get cancer from almost anything. Cockroaches are so lucky...yet disgusting me to =)
    • mal1964, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1"Cockroaches are so lucky"
      Yep, What I wouldn't give to be so lucky
  • mal1964, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6"The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...*****."
    - GC -
  • spkthewingrove, on 04/15/2008, -1/+0Dugg for "but the coconuts are radioactive"
  • Bubba668, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Goes to show you that you cant stop life.
  • EpicSelekta, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1That's too bad. I was hoping for Godzilla or something.
  • Feskanonen, on 04/15/2008, -1/+0This was really interesting. I want a radioactive coconut too!
  • randysouth, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4Dugg for berserk radioactive coconuts.
  • slayernine, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2Or for all you who immediately think of radioactive boobs, three breasts etc. More likely to end up with breast cancer I would think. So yeah, radioactive coconuts aren't much of a fantasy.
    • InRussetShadows, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Digg is much too moronic to pass by any opportunity to discuss boobs.
  • iatethecake, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Well the island can't be worth much with dangerous if not lethal coconuts...
  • HappyScrappy, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Divers at Bikini Atoll sounds like a superhero creation myth to me.
  • slayernine, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1"When I put the Geiger counter near a coconut, which accumulates radioactive material from the soil, it went berserk," says Beger.
  • GirlsCallMeMatt, on 04/15/2008, -1/+0if i eat said coconuts, will i get crazy coconut powers like...being able to retain liquid in a hard brown/green shell?!
  • eem2004, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1Just wait...Now all seems OKAY let's try it again. Who should we pick this time. I mean in fifty years it will be thriving again. Let all move there and get cancers, won't even need radiation when we do!
  • playuhh, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Nuked Coral Reef... Radioactive Mutant Coconuts... Sonic The Hedgehog 4 Anyone?
  • azAZ09, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2The real reason this reef is bouncing back--People (tourists mainly) are staying the hell away from it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.