The Mysterious Black Fungus From Chernobyl That May Eat Radiation (bbc.com) 47
Black fungus found growing inside Chernobyl's destroyed reactor may be feeding on radiation, and researchers have tested samples of the same species aboard the International Space Station to explore whether it could eventually shield astronauts from cosmic rays. Ukrainian scientist Nelli Zhdanova first discovered the melanin-rich mould colonizing the walls and ceilings of the exploded reactor building during a May 1997 survey. Her research indicated that the fungal hyphae were actually growing toward sources of ionizing radiation rather than merely tolerating it.
In 2007, nuclear scientist Ekaterina Dadachova at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine found that melanised fungi grew 10% faster when exposed to radioactive caesium compared to control samples, leading her to propose "radiosynthesis" -- a process where organisms convert radiation into metabolic energy. The same strain, Cladosporium sphaerospermum, traveled to the ISS in December 2018 and grew an average of 1.21 times faster over 26 days compared to Earth-based controls. Nils Averesch, a biochemist at the University of Florida and co-author of that study, remains cautious about attributing the growth boost to radiation harvesting since zero gravity could also be responsible.
In 2007, nuclear scientist Ekaterina Dadachova at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine found that melanised fungi grew 10% faster when exposed to radioactive caesium compared to control samples, leading her to propose "radiosynthesis" -- a process where organisms convert radiation into metabolic energy. The same strain, Cladosporium sphaerospermum, traveled to the ISS in December 2018 and grew an average of 1.21 times faster over 26 days compared to Earth-based controls. Nils Averesch, a biochemist at the University of Florida and co-author of that study, remains cautious about attributing the growth boost to radiation harvesting since zero gravity could also be responsible.
Godzillomycota Chernobilli Kosmonautikus (Score:3)
Sounds like a lot of claptrap, "we did an experiment on ISS, but we did not measure the effective dose and our conclusions are inconclusive".
https://www.frontiersin.org/jo... [frontiersin.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would anyone want to be America's friend?
Re: (Score:1)
1/10, very weak, extremely low energy. An attempt, but no more. Sad, really sad. Give up.
Re: Godzillomycota Chernobilli Kosmonautikus (Score:3)
Well Russia is already sanctioned into the ground. And it already threw its crappy military into Ukraine and lost it. China wants its Siberia and Greater Manchuria back for the natural resources that it doesn't currently have and badly needs, (not only oil, but also fresh water, which it's fast running out of) while Russia has no military left to defend them. Russia has already thoroughly pissed off everybody who otherwise would have cared enough to say something about that. China does not like Russia, they
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's quite plausible that it eats radiation. There are bacteria that live inside rocks and eat radiation. That it would be a shield is, however, very implausible.
Re: (Score:3)
It is quite implausible that any organism that relies on the known cell biology "eats" ionizing radiation.
Radiation damages the complex molecules that make up the living things on Earth very effectively by several mechanisms, all of which are incompatible with life as we know it. The worst mechanism is the generation of oxygen radicals in the water that is the largest component of any cell. There is also the direct breakage of complex molecules - DNA, RNA, proteins, etc. mostly by heavy charged particles th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is plausible that fungi can benefit from some level of ionizing radiation to help break down external sources of food.
It would be plausible if you show us the specific reactions here.
I can't see how a random process like radiation is in any way similar to digestion, which is a highly complex and ordered and deals with specific transformations of specific molecules, not to mention that its biochemistry operates with energies that are from small parts of eV to single eV; ionizing radiation is on the order of at least hundreds of eVs, 3 orders of magnitude higher.
You would not argue that setting your EV's battery on fire will
Re: (Score:1)
Here's one reference, though not the orginal one I read.
https://academic.oup.com/ismej... [oup.com]
Note that this is not DIRECTLY eating radiation, but that's still its energy source, as that's where the H molecule comes from. So to simplify, saying it eats radiation is not wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
I see nothing in the article that explains how ionizing radiation may be a part of the, err, energy "food chain" of these small biomes.
Figure 2 of TFA lists the microbial metabolism pathways, notice the absence of "dissociation of H2 molecules by ionizing radiation". The same is true for the long section that expands on it titled "Factors influencing subsurface microbial community composition", where effects outside the metabolism reactions are discussed.
For example, there are several paragraphs that discus
Re: (Score:2)
Further, looking for references on ionizing radiation as energy source in the cell metabolism, either direct or indirect (I'm not a specialist, so I don't know the field in detail) I come up with really nothing.
Apparently there is something called "radiogenic metabolism", which is mostly a speculative hypothesis:
https://ajcn.nutrition.org/art... [nutrition.org]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Everything else I come across discusses, as expected, damage or coping mechanisms.
https://scholar.google.com/sch... [google.com]
The few paywall l
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. You're right. That article doesn't say it, and I didn't find the one I originally read, which was about bacteria living deep in the earth where the radiation generated ionization states that they used. IIRC it was about bacteria living in a granite based low-level uranium source. And they were living a lot deeper than previously detected bacteria. (This was about 3-4 decades ago, so it's not surprising that I can't find that article. I think it was in Science News, but possibly it was in New Sci
Re: (Score:2)
If it was that long ago, it could have been a hypothesis that was later on invalidated by further research.
While I do think that protein-based biology, especially complex organisms, will hardly ever be comfortable around ionizing radiation, who knows, maybe something can evolve around it, like those bacteria that manage to neutralize the free radicals and endure tens of thousands of grays.
"The Andromeda strain" finished with a bit of a letdown, but the first 3/4 were quite interesting.
WTF are you talking about? (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like a lot of claptrap, "we did an experiment on ISS, but we did not measure the effective dose and our conclusions are inconclusive".
What are you talking about? Did you even read the paper?!
Experimental Setup:
The flight hardware was housed in a 4 × 4 × 8 double unit standard-size CubeLab hardware module and consisted of the following main components: two Raspberry Pi 3 Model B+ (Raspberry Pi Foundation, Caldecote, Cambs., UK) single-board computers, EP-0104 DockerPi PowerBoard (Adafruit Industries, New York, NY, US), PocketGeiger Type5 (Radiation Watch, Miyagi, JP) with the PIN photodiode X100-7 SMD (First Sensor AG, Berlin, DE), Raspberry Pi Camera v2 (Raspberry Pi Foundation, Caldecote, Cambridgeshire, UK) light source (0.8 W LED-strip) for imaging, DHT22 integrated environmental sensor suite (Aosong Electronics Co. Ltd, Huangpu District, Guangzhou, CN) for temperature and humidity readings, a real-time WatchDog timer (Brentek International Inc., York, PA, US), and D6F-P0010A1 (Omron Electronics LLC, Hoffman Estates, IL, US) electronic flow-measurement system. One Raspberry Pi (“auxiliary-computer”) running Raspbian v10.18 was dedicated to photography, lighting, temperature, humidity, and electronic flow measurement (EFM) readings, while the second Raspberry Pi (“flight-computer”) controlled radiation measurements, stored in a probed Logger Memobox (Fluke Corporation, Everett, WA, US). T
Conclusion:
With a basic experimental setup implemented as a single small payload on the ISS, it could be shown that the dematiaceous fungus C. sphaerospermum can be cultivated in space while being subjected to the unique microgravity and radiation environment of LEO. Growth characteristics indicated an advantage of cultivation on-orbit compared to the ground control. This could be associated with increased radiation in space, potentially causing a radioadaptive response of the microbe, as has been suggested in analogous Earth-based studies. Further, monitoring radiation throughout the experiment indicated that the melanized fungal biomass may have radioprotective properties in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I did.
Radiation Measurements in Space
Due to the nature of the employed radiation sensors (PIN photodiode), dosimetric data was not obtained.
Learn not to scroll through the words, but also figure out what they mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain how those particular words are relevant to the matter at hand? It seems like it's saying they failed to record the radiation levels. But we know the ISS has a lot more radiation exposure than normal terrestrial environments.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it can be summed up as "Mr. Dollar Ton is a grumpy old boomer that doesn't understand something, so berates anyone who dares challenge his world view"
Re: (Score:2)
How are the words "we did not record any dosimetry due to our poor choice of detector" relevant to the subject of the article, which is "Effects of Ionizing Radiation on the Cultivation of the Godzillobacterium Radiophagus" Aboard the International Space Station"?
Why, boy, I don't know.
It used to be that when we set up an experiment we'll have a dependent variable (the effects on cultivation) and an independent variable (the ionizing radiation dose) and when we "studied" the second we'd also track the first
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be that when we set up an experiment we'll have a dependent variable (the effects on cultivation) and an independent variable (the ionizing radiation dose) and when we "studied" the second we'd also track the first.
You have a misconception about the experiment. The point wasn't to study the fungus itself but rather the point of the experiment was to see if and how much it would attenuate cosmic radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
the point of the experiment was to see if and how much it would attenuate cosmic radiation.
Not at all. The point of the experiment is, as stated, the "Cultivation of the Dematiaceous Fungus Cladosporium sphaerospermum Aboard the International Space Station and Effects of Ionizing Radiation". I.e. a study of the response of some organism to cosmic radiation. Whatever distant hypothetical goals that line of research is alleged to have are quite irrelevant to this specific experiment.
Since, however, there was no recording of the dose absorbed by the fungus, it is a failed experiment - there is no re
Re: WTF are you talking about? (Score:2)
cheese.
space vehicles coated with cheese.
I just thought space exploration would not be like this
Re: (Score:1)
Radiation on Mars really isn't an issue. Radiation levels on Mars are on average 0.64mSv per day. Radiation levels in Ramsar, Iran are 0.71mSv per day (that's entirely natural, not some crazy weapons program the Iranians are running). Want to know how many extra cancers there are in Ramsar due to the elevated natural radiation levels? None. Absolutely none at all. In fact, Ramsar has a lower cancer rate than both other cities in Iran, and the world in general. This matches a pattern where it seems th
Re:Blast off to Mars in 2026? What are they smokin (Score:5, Interesting)
" Radiation levels on Mars are on average 0.64mSv per day. Radiation levels in Ramsar, Iran are 0.71mSv per day"
Oh really?
https://marspedia.org/Radiatio... [marspedia.org]
"The average natural radiation level on Mars is 24-30 rads or 240-300 mSv per year[1][2]. This is about 40-50 times the average on Earth. "
https://www.esa.int/Science_Ex... [esa.int]
"An astronaut on a mission to Mars could receive radiation doses up to 700 times higher than on our planet "
Best check your facts next time instead of relying on chatgpt or whatever AI slop you got yours from.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, their Mars figure was correct, but they got the one in Iran wrong by a factor of 30. It's about 10mSv/year on average so 0.027mSv/day.
Re: (Score:3)
Radiation on Mars really isn't an issue.
Technologically speaking, the bigger problem is getting people to Mars as they will be exposed to a HUGE amount of cosmic radiation.
An astronaut on a mission to Mars could receive radiation doses up to 700 times higher than on our planet – a major showstopper for the safe exploration of our Solar System.
The issue of the survivability on Mars is entirely moot if you can only deliver soon-to-be corpses.
Re: (Score:2)
To get people to Mars will likely require use of nuclear power. If nuclear power works to keep people alive on Mars then it can work to keep people alive on Earth. If we can pick up a few tricks on minimizing risks from radiation from nature then that just makes nuclear power an even better option.
Uh, that’s a nuclear reactor on a planet that has no protective atmosphere. When you say “minimizing risks”, just be prepared for a lot of laughter from an audience who likely knows better. The idea of any of that being anything but high risk, is a joke.
We will grasp this concept well when the first Martian meteor shower shows the human race the value of atmospheres.
Re:Blast off to Mars in 2026? What are they smokin (Score:5, Insightful)
The atmosphere doesn't protect you from the radiation of the nuclear reactor, the nuclear reactor itself, its biological shielding and the concrete containment building around it protect you from the radiation, and these can theoretically be built on Mars.
Your problem on the surface is the large proton flux from the solar wind, the GCR flux and the secondaries they generate.
Someone above wrote, stupidly thinking it isn't a lot, that the surface dose you get per day is 0.64mSv. Assuming that's right, the yearly dose for a person not in the industry, which doesn't measurably increase radiation risks is 2mSv. On Mars, you'll get it in just three days. The acceptable dose for someone in the industry is 20mSv/year. On Mars, you'll get it in a month.
And on the way in space, given the current tech, you'll get something like 1.5-2Sv, which is not just risk of cancer but very deterministic radiation sickness and the array of damage to your organs that will kill you in a year or two there.
So, a properly designed nuclear reactor on Mars will be an insignificant risk overall - assuming you can build it to Earth standards.
Re: (Score:2)
When I raised the problem of zero atmosphere I was referring to the fact that a simple meteor shower on Earth is merely entertaining instead of completely terrifying on a planet with NO protection against asteroids pummeling the surface at speeds far greater than any containment shielding is designed for. The 2013 crater we discovered on Mars has an observable impact radius almost 10 miles wide. Not to mention frequency:
..the existing observations of new Martian impacts suggest that asteroids of a given size impacting the planet are about 3 times more common than on Earth and the Moon..
Pretty shortsighted to say we need to build that to Earth standards without taking int
Re: (Score:2)
The concrete dome of a typical reactor on Earth can withstand a direct hit from an airliner. I doubt it very much that you get much more than 100 meteorites of that size on the whole of Mars in any given year. The probability of it hitting a hypothetical reactor is higher than on Earth, but still pretty close to zero.
Looked up some research, apparently the rate is even less than 100:
https://www.scopus.com/pages/p... [scopus.com]
Re: (Score:2)
many more...
Re: (Score:2)
They will dig a hole. They will put the tractor in the hole. They will not go back to the hole unless the reactor fails, or they shut it down.
When Martian dirt will do fine for shielding...
The 'news' bit is throwing me off here. (Score:3)
trouble is with all that continued exposure (Score:2, Troll)
Fungus vs plant (Score:3)
It's kind of a suprising to me that it was a fungus and not a plant that developed this ability. After all, plants already feed on elecromagnetic radiation.
Re:Fungus vs plant (Score:5, Insightful)
It's kind of a suprising to me that it was a fungus and not a plant that developed this ability. After all, plants already feed on elecromagnetic radiation.
The chlorophyll in plants is finely tuned to absorb specific wavelengths of light. It already has a hard time with green light compared to blue light, and it's simply not going to work at all with radiation that has wavelengths that are orders of magnitude shorter. Chlorophyll acts like a little antenna that gets excited by certain light frequencies, but ionizing radiation would just blow the chlorophyll molecules apart and destroy them.
Taking advantage ionizing radiation is going to require a completely different mechanism than plant photosynthesis, just like you can't use glass lenses or parabolic mirrors to focus X rays or gamma rays. Plants probably have no more chance of having such a mechanism than fungi do.
Sounds like a plot from (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To repurpose the Rose vs. Dandelion meme (Score:2)
Rose: "The sun is too hot, now I shall die"
Cladosporium sphaerospermum: "Fuck yeah, strong ionizing radiation!"