Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the glowing-review dept.

Writing in the August edition of Environmental Science and Technology Letters, Jason Nolan and Karrie A. Weber of the University of Nebraska report unsafe levels of uranium in groundwater from California's San Joaquin Valley and from the Ogallala Aquifer underlying Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming and South Dakota.

In Natural Uranium Contamination in Major U.S. Aquifers Linked to Nitrate they note a correlation between concentrations of uranium and nitrate ions in the groundwater samples they tested. They theorize that the nitrate, a major component of fertilizer, can oxidize uranium from U(IV) to U(VI), making it water-soluble. They found that in the San Joaquin Valley, uranium reached as much as 180 times the maximum contaminant level (MCL) set by the Environmental Protection Agency, and nitrate was as much as 34 times the MCL. Samples from the Ogallala Aquifer had as much as 89 times the MCL of uranium and 189 times the MCL of nitrate.

Water from these aquifers is used for drinking and for irrigation. Soluble uranium is bioaccumulated by certain food crops; uranium in the human body can result in cancer and kidney damage.

The Associated Press also reported on the story.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:44AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:44AM (#273894)

    Radiation -> Mutation -> Evolution = Good

    Evolution is Good, right, rabid science nerds?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:53AM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:53AM (#273898) Journal

    Not sure if troll or just stupid.

    Any "science nerd"[*], rabid or otherwise, will tell you that evolution is neither "good" nor "bad". It's just something that happens, like plate tectonics, or the Earth orbiting the Sun, whether we like it or not.

    [*] what the hell are you doing on this site anyway, if that's your attitude towards science?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:20PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:20PM (#273903)

      will tell you that evolution is neither "good" nor "bad"

      I don't know about that. There seems to be a perception with many people that evolution always results in 'better' organisms.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by deathlyslow on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:36PM

        by deathlyslow (2818) <wmasmith@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:36PM (#273910)

        I don't know about that. There seems to be a perception with many people that evolution always results in 'better' organisms.

        And that perception would be incorrect. While it is apparent that what we have now "works" it's not necessarily "better" just more common. We don't "know" what precipitated most of the evolutionary changes. We have a good idea from the fossil and and other records, but we aren't sure, it's science ya know. That and we weren't around to observe it directly. I've also wondered when the disposition changes from mutation to evolution.

        *I'm not a science major just an amateur thinker who trusts no one or no thing, very easily. I have to be shown evidence.

        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:15PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:15PM (#274145) Homepage Journal

          Actually it would be correct if "better" was instead "a better fit for the environment", which is what "the fittest" means. "The fittest" means "the best fit for the environment".

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:38PM

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:38PM (#273912) Journal

        > There seems to be a perception with many people that evolution always results in 'better' organisms.

        It all hangs on your definition of "better". Evolution can (over sufficient millions of years) turn fish into humans but it can also turn a T-Rex into a chicken. Would you say that a chicken is "better" than a T-Rex?

        Evolution tends to (ie, not always) produces populations (not the same as individual organisms) that are, on average, more suited to the challenges of their environment and ecosystems than the generations that preceded them. If that's your definition of "better" then yes, evolution produces "better" populations of organisms.

        However, most laypeople work with a definition of "better" that they got from watching X-Men movies. This leads to a false idea that evolution is some ever-escalating progression towards some kind of supreme superbeing, which in turn implies a grand cosmic plan to breed gods from plankton. There is no "progress" because there cannot be progress without a goal, and there cannot be a goal without a plan, and there is no plan. Evolution does not plan its actions any more than a river plans to carry water from the mountains to the sea. That's what the reference to the blind watchmaker is all about.

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by riT-k0MA on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:45PM

          by riT-k0MA (88) on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:45PM (#273914)

          Personally, I think a chicken would taste better than a T-Rex, and be easier to raise for meat.

          Then again, I don't particularly enjoy the taste of reptile and/or carnivore.

          • (Score: 2) by arulatas on Wednesday December 09 2015, @03:25PM

            by arulatas (3600) on Wednesday December 09 2015, @03:25PM (#273961)

            How do you know that T-Rexes don't taste like chicken? Imagine the hot wings.

            --
            ----- 10 turns around
            • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:26PM

              by Kromagv0 (1825) on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:26PM (#274018) Homepage

              Imagine the hot wings.

              I would imagine that they would be about the same size as the ones I can already get.

              --
              T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
            • (Score: 1) by riT-k0MA on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:26PM

              by riT-k0MA (88) on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:26PM (#274049)

              Have you ever tested reptile meat (Birds excluded)? Not my favourite.

              • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:18PM

                by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:18PM (#274146) Homepage Journal

                Dinosaurs weren't reptiles, as was previously thought. They were, unlike reptiles and like birds and mammals, warm blooded. Get a newer encyclopedia, that old 1964 Brittanica is a little out of date.

                --
                mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:47AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:47AM (#274217)

              First, T.Rex barely had arms--forget wings.
              It appears that you are talking about a dragon (a mythical creature).

              That said, if giant wings ever do appear on the menu, don't have the carhop hang your order of those on the side of your car.
              That may cause your vehicle to tip over.

              -- gewg_

        • (Score: 2) by Celestial on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:26PM

          by Celestial (4891) on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:26PM (#274019) Journal

          Are you telling me that none of my descendants will recover near-miraculously from any wounds, live for centuries, develop claws, and call people "bub?" Then why is life worth living? :(

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:34PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:34PM (#273909) Homepage
      Not good or bad? Nonsense! Sometimes it's both good and bad at the same time! (Consider malaria resistance vs. sickle-cell amaemia susceptibility, etc.)

      I was tempted to take a peek at the AC's post so much that I actually did - oh, my, is that the thought-pattern of someone whose thoughts can barely be described as following any pattern. However, you can't let them beat you with incompetence.

      Evaluating "evolution" as either good or bad is about as meaningless as evaluating "travelling" as good or bad. It all depends on what you're coming from, what you're going to, and why you're doing it. And even then, is doing something that's a necessity for continued survival actually "good", rather than just being "necessary"?
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:42PM (#273913)

        I was tempted to take a peek at the AC's post so much that I actually did

        I can only take this to mean that you browse Soylent at a threshold of 1 or higher. It's sad that, in 2015, Anonymous Cowards are still so discriminated against. You should check your registered user privilege, starting at +1 or even +2, while we Cowards are systematically oppressed with 0-scores. Stop being such an anonyphobe.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @07:56PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @07:56PM (#274086)

          Indeed.. I usually read set to zero.
          Perhaps I should boost Anom to start at + 3 WISE.

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:12PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:12PM (#274143) Homepage Journal

      what the hell are you doing on this site anyway

      He's obviously trolling, and you bit. Please stop!

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org