Comments on: Three-Eyed Fish Caught Near Argentinian Nuclear Power Plant

By: Deppydidepp

Deppydidepp — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:54:14 +0000

Stop claiming the Simpsons came up with the three eyed fish! Long ago, a three eyed salmon was actually caught by Yakama indians that just happen to be living downstream the Columbia river from Hanford, the USA\’s insanely contaminated nuclear waste dump, from which radiation has been leaking like mad for ages now: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/america-s-atomic-time-bomb-hanford-nuclear-waste-still-poses-serious-risks-a-752944.html

By: tahrey

tahrey — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:31:58 +0000

Mutations do sometimes occur naturally, but will typically be selected against for various reasons.

Unless and until someone actually bothers to grab a sample of the water and test its radiation level – as well as working out how old the fish is, as this is a deformity it would have hatched with, rather than developing in later life – we have no way of knowing whether this is a natural occurrence, or potentially related to human-caused isotope exposure. It might have just eaten a bunch of bananas someone dropped off a boat.

I’d be highly skeptical though, as nuke plants tend not to dump radioactive water unless there’s been some kind of severe operating emergency. Irradiated water, maybe, but the two things aren’t the same as each other.

By: obviouslytad

obviouslytad — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:49:24 +0000

I find it interesting that Anonymouslyannoyed finds it so easy to write-off a mature 3-eyed fish that clearly survived in the wild for what looks like at least several years (the fish appears to be large) and was found near a nuclear power plant as sensationalism! Mutation are generally a result of some sort of disruption in the development of the organism, as demonstrated in nature when sheep eat the corn lily plant. This produces offspring with one eye, a syndrome called Cyclopia, induced by the naturally existing toxic alkaloid cyclopamine present in the plant. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cyclopelamb2.jpg) Could the fish been mutated by nature? Sure. But considering that it was found near a site containing large amounts of radioactive material (you assume it’s always handled properly) it sure does seem possible that nuclear waste could have played a part.

By: Anonymouslyannoyed

Anonymouslyannoyed — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:10:49 +0000

Given the fact that nuclear power plants use the water for simply heating it up through STEAM turbines and the water is in an isolated system and never comes anywhere near contact with the actual reactor or anything near it, this is a load of garbage. This website should stop trying to sensationalize anything just because it is a slow news day. How about any of the other mutations that have occurred causing an incomplete split of cells, often times leading to a third eye, or in some cases, two heads such as with a lovely little pig born a couple of years ago in the UK. Often, these mutations either die pre-birth or never make it to adulthood because of the mutation’s side effects. Horrible attempt at bashing nuclear power. I would think any adult, semi-conscious website would get their news and back it up with more than a Groening cartoon.

By: pogrom

pogrom — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:51:56 +0000

Bollocks

By: xsimpletunx

xsimpletunx — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:50:13 +0000

Be careful jumping to conclusions. Most people understand that Blinky is a fictitious character but few understand why. The idea is that exposure to elevated doses of certain types of ionizing radiation can cause cellular mutations, which often are far less severe than growing a third eye but it is entirely dependent upon the dose.

So it would have to be shown that something coming out of the nuclear plant was sufficient in quantity to cause a critical dose to the fish, which would then need to show up in future generations. Mutations don’t typically occur within a single generation. Despite popular belief, nuclear plants release very little into the environment. Most radioactivity is contained and the water that is released, especially from a pressurized reactor, is just warm and not radioactive at all. Coal plants on the other hand emit far more radioactive material directly into the environment under normal operating conditions than any nuclear plant does.

Be skeptical but also be aware. The nuclear plant could be responsible but so could a host of other culprits. In fact, its more likely that it is one of those other culprits but the devil is in the details of dose and source.