Fungus at Chernobyl absorbs nuclear radiation via radiosynthesis(technologynetworks.com)
technologynetworks.com
Fungus at Chernobyl absorbs nuclear radiation via radiosynthesis
https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/videos/chernobyl-fungus-eats-nuclear-radiation-via-radiosynthesis-338464
111 comments
Reading the paper again, I made a mistake in my comment above. The mass attenuation coefficient was at 10keV not 100MeV. Water has a mass attenuation coefficient of about 5cm^2/g at 10keV.
Table 1 [1] in the paper shows the true comparison with water at 100 MeV where it can be seen that there is not a large difference. On a weight basis stainless steel outperforms the fungus.
[1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.205534v1....
Table 1 [1] in the paper shows the true comparison with water at 100 MeV where it can be seen that there is not a large difference. On a weight basis stainless steel outperforms the fungus.
[1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.205534v1....
Maybe it’s because you have to ship stainless steel from Earth. Maybe the mass of the fungus can be grown from CO2 from respiration. The carbon originally coming from food, which has to be shipped up. Lots of maybes, but you know, maybe...
> Maybe the mass of the fungus can be grown from CO2 from respiration.
That's not a thing. Fixing carbon to a usable form [0] using "general biological energy source" to the carbon pool is extremely difficult (there are only four and a half, counting c3 vs c4 as a half, pathways known) and requires complex machinery to achieve.
[0] assimilating carbon dioxide in general is not difficult, even humans do it but it does not enter the general carbon pool and is effectively only transiently converted out of CO2, and net does not contribute to biomass.
That's not a thing. Fixing carbon to a usable form [0] using "general biological energy source" to the carbon pool is extremely difficult (there are only four and a half, counting c3 vs c4 as a half, pathways known) and requires complex machinery to achieve.
[0] assimilating carbon dioxide in general is not difficult, even humans do it but it does not enter the general carbon pool and is effectively only transiently converted out of CO2, and net does not contribute to biomass.
Zeolites can do this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeolite
Either you ship steel, or you ship biological material - you're shipping things either way. (And if you can do ISRU, then steel or just plain cast iron is available)
Steel doesn't reproduce though.
Reproduction doesn't create matter ex niliho, either. And in space, organizing the matter is far easier than getting the matter in the first place.
To grow fungus from CO2, don't you first have to grow a plant then let the fungus eat dead plant? Plants require (heavy) equipment to support them.
If it can photosynthesise (on gamma rays no less), then perhaps not. Mold can grow on concrete walls and stuff, so not sure what it needs.
It sounds like this fungus only produces energy, and doesn't fix carbon like photosynthesis does.
Mold growing on concrete walls is actually living off the dust and other organic debris that accumulates on the surface if you don't clean it.
Mold growing on concrete walls is actually living off the dust and other organic debris that accumulates on the surface if you don't clean it.
I wonder if material degradation factors like neutron embrittlement would tip the scales in favor of a fungal barrier at longer timescales.
>> it could be shown that the melanized fungus C. sphaerospermum can be cultivated in LEO (Low Earth Orbit), while subject to the unique microgravity and radiation environment of the ISS.
I believe this "small scale" experiment was meant as a "proof of concept" to illustrate the idea whether this could be done in house in adverse conditions (unlike Earth's conditions) and could be a potential long term solution for radiation attenuation. I would hope that these somewhat promising results would allow them to conduct a large scale experiment.
I believe this "small scale" experiment was meant as a "proof of concept" to illustrate the idea whether this could be done in house in adverse conditions (unlike Earth's conditions) and could be a potential long term solution for radiation attenuation. I would hope that these somewhat promising results would allow them to conduct a large scale experiment.
still worth for the conversion of radiative energy to biological activity
nuclear waste may become green :)
nuclear waste may become green :)
Well technically it already is pretty darn green in that the energy system concentrates its waste into tiny generally well-contained packages that have, per TWh generated, a relatively miniscule negative impact and footprint on the biosphere.
I recognize this is controversial but the numbers are pretty solid.
I recognize this is controversial but the numbers are pretty solid.
For a nonvideo source of info on this:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.205534v1
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.205534v1
And for a layman digestible version https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/radiation-helps-f... (from 2007)
> digestible version
Ooh, was wondering if the fungi were good to eat /s
Ooh, was wondering if the fungi were good to eat /s
>> radiation beneath a ≈ 1.7 mm thick lawn of the melanized radiotrophic fungus (180° protection radius) was 2.17±0.35% lower as compared to the negative control.
2% doesn't seem much but again its just from 1.7 mm thick fungus. Wouldn't it be easier to grow it on Earth instead and test with thicker fungus layer for a significant attenuation of the radiation? I understand that they want to use it eventually on the ISS but couldn't the prototype be tested on Earth as well?
2% doesn't seem much but again its just from 1.7 mm thick fungus. Wouldn't it be easier to grow it on Earth instead and test with thicker fungus layer for a significant attenuation of the radiation? I understand that they want to use it eventually on the ISS but couldn't the prototype be tested on Earth as well?
Protomolecule, not good.
And they just found an ocean on Ceres. Is that in the book?
Ok, but:
1. Is it doable to maintain a 21-cm thick layer of fungus, at all, let alone in space, for a prolonged period of time?
2. Wouldn't it be easier/simpler to replicate this radio-synthesis mechanism in a non-organic setting?
1. Is it doable to maintain a 21-cm thick layer of fungus, at all, let alone in space, for a prolonged period of time?
2. Wouldn't it be easier/simpler to replicate this radio-synthesis mechanism in a non-organic setting?
> Is it doable to maintain a 21-cm thick layer of fungus, at all, let alone in space, for a prolonged period of time?
Building a living wall isn’t hard, I have one with moss in my flat it does wonders for air quality (even if not actual one just the smell/perception is enough), fungus is easy to grow - feed it shit and keep it in the dark does work.
> Wouldn't it be easier/simpler to replicate this radio-synthesis mechanism in a non-organic setting?
This is pretty much one the hardest things to do in science today, replicating complex biological processes in a non-biological manner.
Insulin while being the first human protein to be synthesized today is still created using biotechnology by using bacteria to manufacture it simply because of how difficult it is to synthesize proteins.
Building a living wall isn’t hard, I have one with moss in my flat it does wonders for air quality (even if not actual one just the smell/perception is enough), fungus is easy to grow - feed it shit and keep it in the dark does work.
> Wouldn't it be easier/simpler to replicate this radio-synthesis mechanism in a non-organic setting?
This is pretty much one the hardest things to do in science today, replicating complex biological processes in a non-biological manner.
Insulin while being the first human protein to be synthesized today is still created using biotechnology by using bacteria to manufacture it simply because of how difficult it is to synthesize proteins.
>Insulin while being the first human protein to be synthesized today is still created using biotechnology by using bacteria to manufacture it
An interesting factoid I ran across is where citric acid comes from. I had noticed inexpensive "lemon iced tea" had citric acid listed as an ingredient, and vaguely thought perhaps it's called that just because the citrus source is heavily processed.
Turns out, while citric acid was originally produced on an industrial scale from fruit, circa WWI, due to shortages, Pfizer started making it using microbes, specifically black mold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid
An interesting factoid I ran across is where citric acid comes from. I had noticed inexpensive "lemon iced tea" had citric acid listed as an ingredient, and vaguely thought perhaps it's called that just because the citrus source is heavily processed.
Turns out, while citric acid was originally produced on an industrial scale from fruit, circa WWI, due to shortages, Pfizer started making it using microbes, specifically black mold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid
Citric acid is used as a preservative and regulator in food so it will be added even if the ingredients contain it naturally simply for consistency with flavored drinks it’s even more common to basically break everything down to their base chemical ingredients and then add them back in at the exact amounts.
Overall pretty much anything that is naturally produced in plants and animals will already be the most “efficient” way of doing that both due to natural selection and both due to the fact that the process is easily scalable, heck we still make rubber from the rubber tree because nothing else comes close to that.
Chemistry is fucking hard and we don’t have anything close to the molecular machinery that living organisms have to assemble complex molecules.
Chemistry in living things is like a robotic assembly line in a factory, chemistry in manufacturing is throw stuff into a reaction chamber and stir it until something happens.
Overall pretty much anything that is naturally produced in plants and animals will already be the most “efficient” way of doing that both due to natural selection and both due to the fact that the process is easily scalable, heck we still make rubber from the rubber tree because nothing else comes close to that.
Chemistry is fucking hard and we don’t have anything close to the molecular machinery that living organisms have to assemble complex molecules.
Chemistry in living things is like a robotic assembly line in a factory, chemistry in manufacturing is throw stuff into a reaction chamber and stir it until something happens.
But you don't need to replicate the complex biology - just the simple chemistry. Just like a solar panel doesn't replicate photosynthesis.
Creating the same molecules would be considerably more complex than harvesting them heck we might not even be able to make them at all there is a plethora of compounds we use on a daily basis we can’t synthesize.
Your example isn’t a particularly good one solar panels and photosynthesis don’t operate in the same manner, if we needed to produce chlorophyll at scale we probably wouldn’t be able too.
Your example isn’t a particularly good one solar panels and photosynthesis don’t operate in the same manner, if we needed to produce chlorophyll at scale we probably wouldn’t be able too.
On (2): It is often easier to have the organism do it for us.
Fungi are especially good at creating defense compounds like antivirals, antibacterials, and antifungals. This makes sense when you think about how they grow: miles of hyphae in a single square inch, and only one cell wall keeping the inside from the outside.
There are a lot of compounds that we don’t know how to synthesize, or where it’s so costly so as not to be worth it. Compare that to simply feeding a mushroom waste and waiting. Plants work similar wonders with chemistry.
Fungi are especially good at creating defense compounds like antivirals, antibacterials, and antifungals. This makes sense when you think about how they grow: miles of hyphae in a single square inch, and only one cell wall keeping the inside from the outside.
There are a lot of compounds that we don’t know how to synthesize, or where it’s so costly so as not to be worth it. Compare that to simply feeding a mushroom waste and waiting. Plants work similar wonders with chemistry.
Why are so many videos using computer generated voice overs?
I find find it a real turn off.
I find find it a real turn off.
The videos are written, produced, generated and posted by autonomous GPT-3 bots. The first time any human became aware of this video was at the same time you became aware of it, by following the link from HN.
Disclosure: This comment was written by an autonomous GPT-3 bot.
Disclosure: This comment was written by an autonomous GPT-3 bot.
I feel like posting GPT generated content should include the prompt a courtesy.
[prompt]For fun, there could be an extension to hide the prompt until you become suspicious and enter the konami code.[/prompt]
[prompt]For fun, there could be an extension to hide the prompt until you become suspicious and enter the konami code.[/prompt]
Are there any public ally accessible gpt-3 AIs yet?
What do you think is the difference between the way GPT-3 works and human beings work?
intention
Everything.
This happened in a demo at work recently. I couldn't follow along, the robot voice was just too distracting.
In that case I think it was someone insecure in their English skills, which I guess I can understand. I would rather they just do their best and we will make it work. Most of my coworkers are ESL anyway.
If it's really a problem just ask someone else to do the voiceover. The robots are not anywhere close to good enough to do the narration without being incredibly distracting.
In that case I think it was someone insecure in their English skills, which I guess I can understand. I would rather they just do their best and we will make it work. Most of my coworkers are ESL anyway.
If it's really a problem just ask someone else to do the voiceover. The robots are not anywhere close to good enough to do the narration without being incredibly distracting.
>In that case I think it was someone insecure in their English skills, which I guess I can understand. I would rather they just do their best and we will make it work. Most of my coworkers are ESL anyway.
I think at this point, I can discern even the thickest of accents if the person were to talk slow because of my (awesome) ESL coworkers, but I'm not sure the average person from my city would be able to do the same with some thick ESL accents. I'd personally prefer the human voice like you, though.
I think at this point, I can discern even the thickest of accents if the person were to talk slow because of my (awesome) ESL coworkers, but I'm not sure the average person from my city would be able to do the same with some thick ESL accents. I'd personally prefer the human voice like you, though.
ESL = English as a Second Language.
a guess: cheaper to produce than other videos & favorably ranked (& chosen by consumers) in search results (vs only text)?
Last minute changes to the content become a bit of a nuisance when the deliverable involves a voice recording, to say the least. A good synthesis pipeline could be set up to re-render the whole thing on a git hook.
It used melanin to convert radiation to energy.
Damn.
We are so much alike.
Its kinda funny every living organism in the earth is kinda related to us humans and we to them.
Earth is just a biosphere.
Damn.
We are so much alike.
Its kinda funny every living organism in the earth is kinda related to us humans and we to them.
Earth is just a biosphere.
Well, we are as much alike as our consciousness/brain can manage to find a pattern for. The consciousness compresses reality by finding patterns. As long as we are able to understand some phenomenon, there will always be a pattern that this understanding is serviced by, and we will be able to see some relation between two different things through that pattern. In that sense, everything we perceive will be connected in one way or another. In that sense, everything is "one".
But does that say anything about the physical world, or rather about our own brains, our consciousness and how it works? A matter of perspective. And of how you define "real".
But does that say anything about the physical world, or rather about our own brains, our consciousness and how it works? A matter of perspective. And of how you define "real".
Our ability to leverage those patterns underlies the success of our species, so I would say they are probably quite real.
Fungi and animals actually have a common ancestor, protista. It's not exactly my area of expertise, but I believe that the way a fungus grows its tendrils and communicates over it is much like our nervous system.
Here[0] is a fancy graphic that succinctly displays how the kingdoms of life are categorized.
[0]https://biologydictionary.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Tre...
[0]https://biologydictionary.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Tre...
Protista is a paraphyletic group of single-celled eukariotes. However, animals and fungi are each other's closest multi-cellular living relatives. Animals are closer to other holozoa, and fungi are closer to other holomycota, but both are equally distant from, for example, Amoebozoa, which includes many other protists.
I attended a course of neurophysiology, and the most stunning thing I've found was that all (or maybe almost all, I don't remember clearly) the neurotransmitters used by a human's neurons exist in a single cellular organisms, even in prokaryotes. Serotonin, glutamat, dopamin and others could be found in bacteria, so bacteria had all the chemistry needed for a central neural system hundreds of millions years ago, and nevertheless it took hunderds of millions years ago to build Einstein's brains.
It’s the Access Virus Ti3 Synthesizer
Ah so that's why Access basically dropped off the face of the Earth, they were trapped in the sarcophagus
This is one of the most nature finds a way things I've ever seen
It shouldn't be too surprising since the universe and earth have been and remain naturally filled with radiation for billions of years. The heat that keeps magma warm in the earth comes 50% from radioactive decay of uranium and its daughters. Life today is based on plants and microorganisms absorbing radiation emanating from a giant nuclear reactor in the sky.
This is just a twist on how it's always been done.
This is just a twist on how it's always been done.
Is not it how Godzilla works?
You know where this leads?
The blob. A 1959s sci fi horror movie in which a radioactive fungus takes over the world.
If not today then very soon.
The blob. A 1959s sci fi horror movie in which a radioactive fungus takes over the world.
If not today then very soon.
I think this speaks to a common fear of technology taking over and incidentally/consequentially killing everyone. Like the Terminator series, and many others as well. IRL you might recall the torrents of fearful articles and posts about the world being consumed by a human-triggered black hole when they started building the massive colliders. And every few years, someone predicts AI will do us in. And HAARP killing us with bad weather and earthquakes. So many examples abound.
>> Scientists are thinking of shielding astronauts and space objects with a layer of this radiation-absorbing protective fungus.
This reminds me of Adam Stone's discovery in Cordwainer Smith's Scanners Live in Vain [1]:
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
Adam Stone has basically discovered that the radiation that causes the Great Pain of Space not only affects life, it is absorbed by it. So, surrounding yourself with other living creatures will prevent you from feeling the pain yourself. He eventually settles on building a shield out of live oysters, since they lack any central nervous system to experience pain with.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/ScannersLi...
END SPOILER ALERT
_____________
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanners_Live_in_Vain
This reminds me of Adam Stone's discovery in Cordwainer Smith's Scanners Live in Vain [1]:
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
Adam Stone has basically discovered that the radiation that causes the Great Pain of Space not only affects life, it is absorbed by it. So, surrounding yourself with other living creatures will prevent you from feeling the pain yourself. He eventually settles on building a shield out of live oysters, since they lack any central nervous system to experience pain with.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/ScannersLi...
END SPOILER ALERT
_____________
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanners_Live_in_Vain
Interesting - how haven’t I heard about that story? I immediately thought about how Rick covers his outpost in screaming Mortys so that the galactic government can’t detect him. Morty pain as anti-Rick is a strange, appealing and disturbing thought... they’re effectively oysters soaking up the pain of the universe.
Haha, yes that was the first thing that popped into my head too.
I remember thinkig how ridiculous (but entertaining) an idea that was, like many of his very unusual thoughts. Maybe not so crazy after all!
I remember thinkig how ridiculous (but entertaining) an idea that was, like many of his very unusual thoughts. Maybe not so crazy after all!
When I was in High School I had a teacher who taught a Literature of SF class.
Every single short story in the Science Fiction Hall of Fame Vol. 1 was required reading.
I remain thankful to that teacher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Science_Fiction_Hall_of_Fa...
Every single short story in the Science Fiction Hall of Fame Vol. 1 was required reading.
I remain thankful to that teacher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Science_Fiction_Hall_of_Fa...
Yes! Ever since I read that I’ve caught myself thinking of cosmic radiation as ‘the pain of space’.
[deleted]
Interestingly enough this resilience of fungus, and even mold [0], to radiation has been a bit of a problem on the ISS [1].
[0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190627121252.h...
[1] https://www.colorado.edu/aerospace/2019/11/01/mold-space-nas...
[0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190627121252.h...
[1] https://www.colorado.edu/aerospace/2019/11/01/mold-space-nas...
[deleted]
There's simply no way that this type of fungus could absorb enough radiation simply because it's not dense enough.
If you want to absorb radiation you have to block it which means it has to come into contact with matter.
The only way you can do this is to have either a smaller volumetric amount of something that's dense (lead, gold, uranium, etc) or a LARGE amount of something less dense (water, concrete, etc).
If you're just talking about an organic organism, sure, it can use the radiation BUT you'd need to have a MASSIVE amount of it in terms of volume and weight.
Simply put, the fungus itself is sparse when looking at it from a subatomic perspective. Most of the radiation passes right through it.
If you want to absorb radiation you have to block it which means it has to come into contact with matter.
The only way you can do this is to have either a smaller volumetric amount of something that's dense (lead, gold, uranium, etc) or a LARGE amount of something less dense (water, concrete, etc).
If you're just talking about an organic organism, sure, it can use the radiation BUT you'd need to have a MASSIVE amount of it in terms of volume and weight.
Simply put, the fungus itself is sparse when looking at it from a subatomic perspective. Most of the radiation passes right through it.
I think the whole framing of this discussion is inappropriate. The interesting thing about this fungus is that it can use the radiation as an energy source to sustain life. The fact that we can’t use the fungus as some kind of miracle lightweight radiation shield is missing the point.
Here we have a life form that has adapted to make use of a very unusual (on earth’s surface, anyway) energy source. That should not be taken for granted. It’s an amazing demonstration of the adaptability of life. It also warrants a deeper investigation into how this ability works and how it came about by evolutionary processes.
Here we have a life form that has adapted to make use of a very unusual (on earth’s surface, anyway) energy source. That should not be taken for granted. It’s an amazing demonstration of the adaptability of life. It also warrants a deeper investigation into how this ability works and how it came about by evolutionary processes.
Agreed, lead blocks radiation quite well. I don't know why anyone would care about that property in a fungus. What is fascinating is that life evolved a novel energy pathway here, this is like photosynthesis but with gamma radiation. I'd love to know more about it.
> I don't know why anyone would care about that property in a fungus.
My thought would be the possibility of it being cheaper to produce than lead, possible to farm it. That could mean a more lightweight material for insulated suits and stuff along those lines.
My thought would be the possibility of it being cheaper to produce than lead, possible to farm it. That could mean a more lightweight material for insulated suits and stuff along those lines.
It's unlikely to be much use for shielding for reasons the top comment explains.
The real reason to care is because it's an interesting - almost textbook - example of evolution operating in a challenging environment.
The real reason to care is because it's an interesting - almost textbook - example of evolution operating in a challenging environment.
> It's unlikely to be much use for shielding for reasons the top comment explains.
I did read the comment - I know it can't be used for that. I only said that as a more generic response to "I don't know why anyone would care" about this property being found in a fungus - a statement which seemed to lack any imagination imo.
> The real reason to care is because it's an interesting - almost textbook - example of evolution operating in a challenging environment.
This is true! Good point.
I did read the comment - I know it can't be used for that. I only said that as a more generic response to "I don't know why anyone would care" about this property being found in a fungus - a statement which seemed to lack any imagination imo.
> The real reason to care is because it's an interesting - almost textbook - example of evolution operating in a challenging environment.
This is true! Good point.
"It’s an amazing demonstration of the adaptability of life."
Ya. Just as awesome as chemosynthetic life forms adapted for hydrothermal vents.
It's hard not to be dumb stuck.
Ya. Just as awesome as chemosynthetic life forms adapted for hydrothermal vents.
It's hard not to be dumb stuck.
Absorbtion is a misnomer.
It uses a tiny fraction of energy of whatever particle it is. In terms of attenuation it cant be different from anything else of similar density and composition.
It uses a tiny fraction of energy of whatever particle it is. In terms of attenuation it cant be different from anything else of similar density and composition.
But then why this seemingly-ridiculous line from the article?
> Scientists are thinking of shielding astronauts and space objects with a layer of this radiation-absorbing protective fungus.
> Scientists are thinking of shielding astronauts and space objects with a layer of this radiation-absorbing protective fungus.
Because NASA is no longer relevant, but desperately wants to be. So they publish anything, and anlways with a sensational headline: microbes that incorporate arsenic into biomolecules, reactionless microwave propulsion, and not fungal radiation shields.
That line doesn't just seem ridiculous, it is.
That line doesn't just seem ridiculous, it is.
Because the "article" is a clickbait Youtube video from a channel with videos like "Is the world ending in 2020?" and "Ghost caught on tape in my apartment." It doesn't even name the scientists.
I went searching for "NASA Chernobyl fungus" and found a paper about using it as a shield on mars: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.205534v1
>Estimations based on linear attenuation coefficients indicated that a ~ 21 cm thick layer of this fungus could largely negate the annual dose-equivalent of the radiation environment on the surface of Mars, whereas only ~ 9 cm would be required with an equimolar mixture of melanin and Martian regolith.
It makes more sense in the Mars context, where you might not have lead available, and where growing a large amount of fungus from a small seed packet is a big bonus.
I went searching for "NASA Chernobyl fungus" and found a paper about using it as a shield on mars: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.205534v1
>Estimations based on linear attenuation coefficients indicated that a ~ 21 cm thick layer of this fungus could largely negate the annual dose-equivalent of the radiation environment on the surface of Mars, whereas only ~ 9 cm would be required with an equimolar mixture of melanin and Martian regolith.
It makes more sense in the Mars context, where you might not have lead available, and where growing a large amount of fungus from a small seed packet is a big bonus.
Given we are taking about space here I'm quite sure water outperforms per kg compared to the others you've mentioned.
Fairly certain there's no high-Z solid that could compete on cost to orbit.
Fairly certain there's no high-Z solid that could compete on cost to orbit.
[deleted]
Density blocks radiation but it's the "hard way" of doing it
It's better to have something that resonates in the frequencies you want to block.
Given that melanin already works in the UV range it's not surprising that maybe with some changes it works with higher frequencies (though not too trivial neither because of the way quantum physics work)
It's better to have something that resonates in the frequencies you want to block.
Given that melanin already works in the UV range it's not surprising that maybe with some changes it works with higher frequencies (though not too trivial neither because of the way quantum physics work)
I work in ionizing radiation transport. We use materials with high electron densities to shield gamma rays. Should we be using a material that "resonates" with gamma rays instead? If so could you provide an example of this working on gamma rays?
I down voted your comment, here is why.
Working in transporting this material I'd gather you'd have expertise related to this.
Could you better explain why the existing approach is used?Can you counter the arguments made by what you're replying on? Is your comment providing value or information to who you're replying to?
Working in transporting this material I'd gather you'd have expertise related to this.
Could you better explain why the existing approach is used?Can you counter the arguments made by what you're replying on? Is your comment providing value or information to who you're replying to?
Thank you for explaining!
Gamma rays interact with atomic electrons and get slowed down via the photoelectric effect, compton scattering, and pair production [1]. Depending on the energy of the gamma ray, different fractions of those interactions will dominate. The ones that matter most for most ionizing gamma rays we encounter work better if there are more electrons packed in. So we use high density materials like lead because they have lots of electrons to stop gamma rays.
No where on this list of tools have I ever seen "materials that resonate with the radiation" so I'm just asking what the heck kind of radiation shielding physical effect is being referred to.
[1] https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/003263...
Gamma rays interact with atomic electrons and get slowed down via the photoelectric effect, compton scattering, and pair production [1]. Depending on the energy of the gamma ray, different fractions of those interactions will dominate. The ones that matter most for most ionizing gamma rays we encounter work better if there are more electrons packed in. So we use high density materials like lead because they have lots of electrons to stop gamma rays.
No where on this list of tools have I ever seen "materials that resonate with the radiation" so I'm just asking what the heck kind of radiation shielding physical effect is being referred to.
[1] https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/003263...
You are right of course, but the effects you're describing are kind of what I meant
Yes, I don't think there is a magic material that will perfectly resonate with high energy gamma rays. But evolution might be able to figure it out. Maybe "resonance" is more specific, and "interaction" is better.
My criticism was more to the " you need thick material to stop radiation" whereas the answer is more "we need thick material because that's the best material we know for the job". Glass is opaque to UV which is more energetic than visible light for example.
And not to forget we know if some materials that do absorb gamma rays, the issue is that they like to go boom after doing that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photofission
Yes, I don't think there is a magic material that will perfectly resonate with high energy gamma rays. But evolution might be able to figure it out. Maybe "resonance" is more specific, and "interaction" is better.
My criticism was more to the " you need thick material to stop radiation" whereas the answer is more "we need thick material because that's the best material we know for the job". Glass is opaque to UV which is more energetic than visible light for example.
And not to forget we know if some materials that do absorb gamma rays, the issue is that they like to go boom after doing that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photofission
Just quick response on the last point: Photofission reactions happen all the time in places like nuclear reactors. There are no materials that I'm aware of that photofission explosively. The photofission reactions are generally very rare compared to all the other reactions. Heck, natural uranium in your kitchen counter spontaneously fissions all the time but that doesn't lead to an explosion because 1 million atoms is a lot less than 1e23 atoms. Am I missing something?
Agree, go boom is a bit of an exaggeration, I meant that you probably don't want materials that undergo fission while absorbing your radiation
What’s astonishing is not the ability to block radiation (after all, biology will always defer to chemistry first, and physics second—there’s no way biology can come up with something that exceeds the capabilities of its substrates) but rather life’s way of rapidly adapting to make use of whichever energy source it can find to eke out an energy budget to thrive on.
P.S. Who else heard Dr Ian Malcom say “Life... finds a way” in their head?
P.S. Who else heard Dr Ian Malcom say “Life... finds a way” in their head?
On the contrary, I’d argue that most “life” (in the sense of our Eucledian definition of it) relies on exceeding the capabilities of its substrates via emergent properties - at least from the perspective of our current infantile understanding of the universe. Photosynthesis is so efficient because electrons jump multi-molecule gaps due to quantum effects, as we’ve found only a few years ago. The theory that most biological brains heavily leverage quantum processes is rapidly gaining ground as well - we simply lack the intelligence and processing capacity to design anything like it, since compared to our current computational abilities, millions of years worth of entropy may as well be an infinite amount.
Reductionism fails as completely as it does hilariously when it comes to systems where the whole does indeed exceed the sum of its parts due to laws of the universe we have yet to grasp. A much more sane approach is to think of the matter something is comprised of as nothing more than a filter/transformer for the entropy and environment it exists within. Life routinely harnesses entropy whereas our current technology is so ass backwards it does little but struggle against it (dendrites in batteries, for example). What science considers to be degradation or wear and tear is the very process living things rely on to exist - let that sink in.
Reductionism fails as completely as it does hilariously when it comes to systems where the whole does indeed exceed the sum of its parts due to laws of the universe we have yet to grasp. A much more sane approach is to think of the matter something is comprised of as nothing more than a filter/transformer for the entropy and environment it exists within. Life routinely harnesses entropy whereas our current technology is so ass backwards it does little but struggle against it (dendrites in batteries, for example). What science considers to be degradation or wear and tear is the very process living things rely on to exist - let that sink in.
I think you’ve missed my point entirely: the jumping of electrons that makes photosynthesis “so efficient” (which it isn’t—as a recent post here mentioned, it’s tuned for stability) is not in defiance of the laws of physics, but entirely compatible with them.
Only density can attenuate nuclear radiation, that’s the fundamental physical intuition here (which is also absent from the article/video posted). Nothing “merely biological” is going to change that. Now, making use of some of the energy that is attenuated by the non-dense biological medium... thta’s entirely within the biological domain.
Only density can attenuate nuclear radiation, that’s the fundamental physical intuition here (which is also absent from the article/video posted). Nothing “merely biological” is going to change that. Now, making use of some of the energy that is attenuated by the non-dense biological medium... thta’s entirely within the biological domain.
> Photosynthesis is so efficient because electrons jump multi-molecule gaps due to quantum effects, as we’ve found only a few years ago.
That's true, but is a short lived and very local effect.
> The theory that most biological brains heavily leverage quantum processes is rapidly gaining ground as well [...]
No, there is only some handwaving. It's impossible to keep the quantum coherence in a system that weight 1.5kg at 310K.
That's true, but is a short lived and very local effect.
> The theory that most biological brains heavily leverage quantum processes is rapidly gaining ground as well [...]
No, there is only some handwaving. It's impossible to keep the quantum coherence in a system that weight 1.5kg at 310K.
[deleted]
> That’s true, but only local and short lived and very local effect.
And critically for my argument, photosynthesis works (less efficiently) even when this effect is absent. It’s not a mystery ingredient that makes the whole thing work.
And critically for my argument, photosynthesis works (less efficiently) even when this effect is absent. It’s not a mystery ingredient that makes the whole thing work.
Life can't exceed the capabilities of its substrates on their own terms, but it's not clear that life can be fully explained in or reduced to those terms either.
Anyways, yes, this is super cool.
Anyways, yes, this is super cool.
I’m glad you made this point, because it allows me to issue a cautionary word to those dualists who think that somehow the mind is something disjoint from the brain.
Yes, I'm glad you mention that; unfortunately I think sometimes the idea that causation may be multi-dimensional (in other words, that there is not necessarily a single implicative model capable of wholly explaining all things) gets mistaken for some sort of dualism.
But that view does not imply that mind and body are disjoint, are separate "essences", etc.
But that view does not imply that mind and body are disjoint, are separate "essences", etc.
“Minds are what brains do, like beats are what hearts do” is my favourite summary of that.
Earth has always been radioactive, so my guess is that this is an ancient ability rarely used/seen, not something that evolved since 1986.
Is the fungus edible?
Here's the real question. Or, can it be made edible? Cultivating something like this on Mars out in the open makes more sense than growing potatoes indoors.
Even if it’s not directly edible it can be a source of amino acids and proteins that could be then processed into something edible or be a source of food for other things that provide better nutritional value to humans like yeast.
The question is it going to be more cost effective than hydroponics.
The question is it going to be more cost effective than hydroponics.
There's a movie plot that's fairly adjacent to this and even has pretty good ratings: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt7425298/
[deleted]
I'm actually surprised this cheaply written two paragraph article with no references is being discussed here.
Two words:
Mars Mission.
Mars Mission.
[1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.205534v1....
[2] https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a278139.pdf
Edit: I made a mistake in this comment, see child comment for correction.