RE: radioprotection of other species

["Bjorn Cedervall" <bcradsafers@hotmail.com>]

>it but the following seems to me as quite appropriate:
>Current ICRP recommendations:
>"The Commission therefore believes that if man is adequately protected 
> >then the other living things are also likely to be sufficiently 
> >protected."
>The idea is to change this to:
>"If other living things are adequately protected then the man is also 
> >likely to be sufficiently protected."
----
This is what is being questioned now. Nothing of what I have seen concerns 
milking cows should there be a severe accident (as someone else pointed out 
(Fritz?) - interesting aspect in itself).
And nothing of this is about food pathways to humans.
It is about direct protection of plants and animals against the effects of 
radiation. Therefore I ask as question one: protection against which 
effects? No doubt quite local pine trees and other species can die because 
of a catastrophy of the Chernobyl type but the pine tree (Pinus sp.) as a 
species won't be eradicated. I wonder if there is any good description about 
the biotopic transients (succesisions) that must have taken place around the 
near vicinity of the Chernobyl plant. After all people have been working 
there (sidetopic: what were their annual doses say during the last 2-3 
years?).

The main interesting situation as I see it would be if there were a species 
that was only there occurring locally and also were of a high unique 
taxonomic order (Ginkgo biloba is the only representative of a high 
taxonomic group the otherwise is extinct). I am not aware of any such 
relevant situation. The opposite could be to endanger a non-sexually 
reproducing clone (variety) of a dandelion (Taraxacum vulgare, the 
Asteraceae family with about 30 000 different species). From a principal 
aspect I see no difference here from the situation where you scrape off a 
piece of land to build some houses and therefore kill a good number of 
individuals of other species - and in most cases you don't exterminate the 
core taxonomic group.

Why do I mention taxonomy? Because one problem is that the word "species" 
isn't well defined - it is most often gradual in time and space. It is a 
concept that matches our text books for classifications (A or B?) and we can 
stipulate rules about fertil hybrids etc but in practice this can be much 
tougher. The fertility barriers between subspecies may not be sharp but 
rather percentages that are gradual between what we often call subspecies. 
For the time dimension - only stipulated definitions would do: "Homo sapiens 
has been around for 41 000 years or 141 000 years" or whatever. The 
bottomline is that the species concept may mislead the mind - we may draw 
the wrong conclusions regarding priorities if we don't know what we are 
talking about. The word "species" is a simplification that we should bear in 
mind when we use it. Good botanical examples that probably can cause 
headache (or even create PhD:s) among more than professionals occur in 
genera like Allium, Bromus, Carex, Epilobium, Euphrasia, Luzula, Nigella 
(very good for the purpose of illustration of partial hybridization), 
Ranunculus, Rosa, and Salix.

To go back to radiology - and considering the Gennadas (sp.?) shrimp I 
mentioned earlier (that may take 26 Gy annually due to natural Po-210 
accumulation in its hepato-pancreas) - I doubt that this can have any effect 
on the Gennadas as a taxonomic group (or population - another word that may 
be vague - look at the difference between a taxonomic group - say a turtle 
"species" and that same kind of turtle in a particular pond). But the draft 
report text I referred to has a sentence about "any protection of a 
population must be on the level of individuals" or something similar. Then I 
go back to the dandelion I mentioned above. Is there any difference 
ethically? I can't see that.

But the draft text also mentioned induction of proteins, point mutations and 
chromosomal aberrations. Then I ask why?

But there is also the previously mentioned "cuteness gradient" that may 
cause problems (emotions may take over - how do we state that we want to 
protect some form of life? We are clearly trying to get rid of polio (a 
virus) - no human understandably questions this - but how do we define the 
line? (any people who like mosquitos?).

My personal reflections only,

Bjorn Cedervall   bcradsafers@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/bjorn_cedervall/

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html