Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hunter

(38,264 posts)
Fri Apr 23, 2021, 09:50 AM Apr 2021

Chernobyl radiation damage "not passed to children"

There is no "additional DNA damage" in children born to parents who were exposed to radiation from the Chernobyl explosion before they were conceived.

This is according to the first study to screen the genes of children whose parents were enlisted to help in the clean-up after the nuclear accident.

Participants, all conceived after the disaster and born between 1987 and 2002, had their whole genomes screened.

The study found no mutations that were associated with a parent's exposure.

--more--

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56846728


Link to source:

Abstract

Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365


I'll speculate that the impact on many other sexually reproducing species is similarly "minimal."

Nevertheless we should strive to avoid these sorts of accidents.


3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Chernobyl radiation damage "not passed to children" (Original Post) hunter Apr 2021 OP
The animals living in the exclusion zone develope cancerous tumors mountain grammy Apr 2021 #1
So did the people. hunter Apr 2021 #2
I wonder if this positive outcome is due to treatment with spirulina. Here's one link: in2herbs Apr 2021 #3

mountain grammy

(26,571 posts)
1. The animals living in the exclusion zone develope cancerous tumors
Fri Apr 23, 2021, 09:56 AM
Apr 2021

as did most of the cleanup workers. This documentary is excellent..

&ab_channel=FreeDocumentary-Nature

hunter

(38,264 posts)
2. So did the people.
Fri Apr 23, 2021, 10:57 AM
Apr 2021

But one reason sexual reproduction is so successful, beyond the reshuffling of genetic traits, is that damaged ova, sperm, zygotes, and early embryos simply don't develop and are discarded, usually within hours or days. These mutations never make it into the gene pool.

The natural error correcting mechanisms of sexual reproduction are powerful. Even before man-made mutagens polluted our environment, throughout the history of multi-cellular life on earth, the environment has always contained powerful mutagens, everything from viruses to mycotoxins to natural background radiation.

The consequences of the Chernobyl accident will be similar to those of any other industrial accident that spills carcinogenic or mutagenic chemicals. As these toxins decay or are sequestered by natural processes the environmental impacts will be much reduced. There's nothing "special" about radioactive pollution. Pollution is pollution.

The thing I find most disturbing about the accident at Chernobyl is how it demonstrated that people going about their ordinary lives do more damage to the natural environment than nuclear fallout.

After the Fukushima accident I started joking that I'd rather be a slightly radioactive fish living in the ocean than a non-radioactive fish on some human's dinner table.







Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Chernobyl radiation damag...