As per ICRP there is no evidence of radiation induced genetic effects in Humans (even in atomic bomb survivors). Chernobyl area has large number of trees and animals - the area is not disturbed by humans as it is abandoned. Plants and animals are there in huge numbers (growing and growing) and might have adopted the high background radiation.
Also those working on (normal) nuclear power plants get sick children. It is mortal, and don't give mutants with better functions. The conclusion in your question is misleading, to my opinion, since there were very much genetic effects, but they did not survive. But strong mutants is very interesting and that, one could discuss how to obtain.
I think there may be small mutations (not only by radiation but general), not to the next generation, but starting on an individual, is that correct?
I remember vaguely after the accident: There were clouds of radiation traveling far, and they spotted Cesium in the fungus here. I worked on 3 nuclear power plants, and once we got sick, but due to food poison. There were small areas outside where they put low radioactive clothes and tools, but I am sure it was food poison.
Other earlier industries used Pb and Hg that later was found dangerous for the environment, (especially the fishes became infertile), and such ground is now evacuated 40 years after. Hg was used as filling in teeth until 1990. But no-one suffered, it was instead that when reaching the water and circulating, it was too much and enriched in the fishes.
This maybe, to interpretate the results in the article of the first answer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_coloration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridescence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_pigment
There are also results on modified flowers, where they predicted wrong colours
In accordance with the ICRP publications: It is more probable that a mutation causes individual cell death, and in the end, death of the organism. So the most mutations would not become inheritable.
If there is any evolutionary effect, then it would be that organism that are per se more tolerant to radiation have a higher tendency to survive than others, so this mechanism would, on the longer term, lead to an ever higher percentage of the population that is more tolerant to radiation. This is what evolution does. It is a misconcept of evolution to think that an organism can spontaneously develop a resistance to radiation just if there is the "right" mutation by coincidence.
And if so, the probability that this organism are the humans, is very low.
On the other hand, there may be other potential development for humans, such as galars. Some surgery in cheek and mouth to make diffusion of oxygen into blood vessels larger. It could be inheritable, no evidence against.
Then, comparing with the large fishes in the North Seas, endurance against cold would be beneficial and probably that is solved by adjustable blood vessels, some way
One of the best studies of genetic effects following the Chernobyl accident is presented in the Journal of Heredity
https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article/105/5/704/2961808/Genetic-and-Ecological-Studies-of-Animals-in
The main conclusions from the study are:
1. elevated rates of genetic damage and mutation rates are observed
2. significant reduction of the population sizes for birds, bees, butterflies, grasshoppers, dragonflies, spiders and mammals in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is evident
It is also relevant to mention the health effects discussed succinctly in the paper published in The New England Journal of Medicine
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1103676#t=article
I hope that these papers can answer your question at least partially. We still do not have fully conclusive studies but the paper published in the Journal of Heredity indicates that the genetic effects following major accidental releases of radioactivity are significant.
No radiation-related heritable/hereditary/transgenerational effects have been observed in humans, but this does not mean that no effects will be observed in the offspring of exposed individuals. Thus, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has considered heritable effects in computing detriment and tissue weighting factor (wT) for gonads (i.e., male testes and female ovaries). Provided below is a brief outline of the historical changes.
ICRP Publication 26 issued in 1977 considered hereditary effects in the first two generations only, with the harm after the first two generations being considered less relevant. The 1980 Brighton Statement raised concerns about the total genetic harm, and ICRP Publication 60 issued in 1990 considered hereditary effects in all future generations, assuming that estimates used in the risk equation will remain valid for tens or hundreds of human generations, and that the population structure, demography and health care facilities will remain constant over many centuries. ICRP Publication 103 issued in 2007 subsequently regarded those assumptions as very unrealistic and untestable, and hence considered heritable effects only up to the second generation.
The F1 mortality cohort developed by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation consists of 76,814 subjects born between 1 May 1946 and 31 December 1984 to atomic bomb survivors, and those to non-exposed individuals who were not in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki city (so called NIC) at the time of the bombing.
No statistically significant effects of parental atomic bomb radiation exposure to the first generation offspring have thus far been observed for various endpoints, such as cancers, mortality, frequency of chromosome aberrations, pregnancy outcome, enzymatic activity, and prevalence of lifestyle related multifactorial disease.
The cohort, however, is coming to the age (the current age now ranges from 32 years to 71 years) when more cancers and lifestyle related diseases will be expected, and continued studies are therefore important., e.g., to know whether or not preconception exposure of parents to ionizing radiation induces mutations in F1 as suggested by animal studies.
Pertinent recent papers
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27039765
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26384241
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23482396
The Annexes D and E of the UNSCEAR 2008 Report Volume II gives an overview as to the effects of ionizing radiation on humans and on non-human biota, respectively.
http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2008/UNSCEAR_2008_Annex-D.pdf
http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2008/UNSCEAR_2008_Annex-E.pdf
In the 2013 Fukushima report (especially Annex F) and its subsequent 2015 white paper (especially section VIII) and 2016 white paper (especially section IX), the UNSCEAR gives an overview as to the Fukushima nuclear accident, including the effects on non-human biota.
Of these, the followings include discussion on the observations reported on the pale grass blue butterfly (Zizeeria maha, the first-voltine adults in the Fukushima area in May 2011 showed relatively mild abnormalities; the F1 offspring from the first-voltine females showed more severe abnormalities, which were inherited by the F2 generation; adult butterflies collected in September 2011 showed more severe abnormalities than those collected in May 2011; abnormality rates had returned to levels existing before the accident by 2013), and declines in the abundance of the birds and invertebrates (including comparison with the Chernobyl cases).
Paragraphs 197 and F4-F6 in the Annex A of the UNSCEAR 2013 Report
http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2013/UNSCEAR_2013_Annex-A-CORR.pdf
Paragraphs 82 and 83 in the UNSCEAR 2015 White Paper
http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2015/UNSCEAR_WP_2015.pdf
Paragraphs 131 and 132 in the UNSCEAR 2016 White Paper
http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2016/UNSCEAR_WP_2016.pdf
Regarding the pale grass blue butterfly, the following paper has also just become available online.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28431090
I am not sure where to begin. There are now a plethora of studies providing overwhelming evidence of genetic consequences of exposure to radioactivity from Chernobyl on natural populations. I will begin a list and see where it takes us:
1) Strong effects of ionizing radiation from Chernobyl on mutation rates. Anders Pape Møller & Timothy A. Mousseau. Scientific Reports 5, Article number: 8363 (2015) doi:10.1038/srep08363
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep08363
2) Møller, A.P., T.A. Mousseau. 2015. Biological Indicators of Ionizing Radiation in Nature. In: R.H. Armon, O. Hanninen (eds), Environmental Indicators, pp871-881, Springer, Netherlands. DOI:10.1007/978-94-017-9499-2_49
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anders_Moller3/publication/271473323_Biological_Indicators_of_Ionizing_Radiation_in_Nature/links/54cd332c0cf29ca810f7ad66.pdf
3) Mousseau, T.A., A.P. Møller. 2014. Genetic and ecological studies of animals in Chernobyl and Fukushima. Journal of Heredity, 105:704-709.
https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jhered/esu040
4) Galvan, I., A. Bonisoli-Alquati, S. Jenkinson, G. Ghanem, K. Wakamatsu, T.A. Mousseau, A.P. Møller. 2014. Chronic exposure to low-dose radiation at Chernobyl favors adaptation to oxidative stress in birds. Functional Ecology, DOI: 10.111/1365-2435.12283.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12283/full
5) Møller, A.P. and T.A. Mousseau. 2013. The effects of natural variation in background radioactivity on humans, animals and other organisms. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 88:226-254.
http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/papers/Moller-Mousseau-BRV-2012.pdf
6) Møller, A.P., J. Erritzoe, F. Karadas, and T. A. Mousseau. 2010. Historical mutation rates predict susceptibility to radiation in Chernobyl birds. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23(10): 2132-2142. DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02074.x
This one is slightly off-ropic but deserves to be mentioned as it provides some evidence that DNA repair may be an important element of responses to mutagens.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02074.x/full
7) Bonisoli-Alquati, A., A. Voris, T. A. Mousseau, A. P. Møller, N. Saino, and M. Wyatt. 2010. DNA damage in barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) from the Chernobyl region detected by the use of the Comet assay. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C- Toxicology & Pharmacology 151: 271-277.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrea_Bonisoli-Alquati/publication/40035138_DNA_damage_in_barn_swallows_Hirundo_rustica_from_the_Chernobyl_region_detected_by_use_of_he_comet_assay/links/0912f5086e7c7ef60a000000/DNA-damage-in-barn-swallows-Hirundo-rustica-from-the-Chernobyl-region-detected-by-use-of-he-comet-assay.pdf
8) A. P. Møller, T. A. Mousseau. 2006. Biological consequences of Chernobyl: 20 years after the disaster. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21: 200-207.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Timothy_Mousseau/publication/7080615_Biological_consequences_of_Chernobyl_20_years_on/links/0912f510134e6d4a2f000000/Biological-consequences-of-Chernobyl-20-years-on.pdf
The most recent summary is here:
Mousseau, T.A., Møller, A.P. 2017. The animals of Chernobyl and Fukushima. In: Korogodina, V.L., C.E.Mothersill, S.G. Inge-Vechtomov, C.B. Seymour. (eds.), “Genetics, Evolution and Radiation: Crossing Borders, The Interdisciplinary Legacy of Nikolay W. Timofeef-Rossovsky”, pages 251-266. Springer International Publishing, 558pp.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315848003_The_Animals_of_Chernobyl_and_Fukushima
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep08363
https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jhered/esu040
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12283/full
http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/papers/Moller-Mousseau-BRV-2012.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02074.x/full
Article Biological consequences of Chernobyl: 20 years on
Article DNA damage in barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) from the Chern...
Chapter Biological Indicators of Ionizing Radiation in Nature
Chapter The Animals of Chernobyl and Fukushima
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials
- Inorganic Materials
- Metals
- Alloys
- Steel