Skip to main content

On The Discovery of Blinky in Argentina

Like a lot of folks, we've been seeing the reports out of Argentina that locals have caught a 3-eyed fish (leading to inevitable Simpsons comparison) in a lake adjacent to the Embalse nuclear power plant.

Here are just a couple of thoughts before the shots get mainstream media pickup:
  • While the photos in question might be interesting to those who get their science from a prime time cartoon, one would hope they would be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.
  • If the photos are real, we need to keep in mind that while seeing examples of mutation can be unsettling, they're not uncommon and occur naturally all the time.
  • Drawing a connection between this fish and the power plant is more than a bit of a stretch. During normal operations, nuclear power plants are a source of clean and reliable, carbon free power. As even a source like Scientific American has noted, coal plants actually emit more radioactivity than nuclear power plants.

Comments

Pedro said…
Let's see the end of the history but in Spain we saw a similar story in 2002. The ecologist organization "Ecologistas en Acción" said they had discovered a mutant fish and anormaly big vetegables around Garoña Nuclear Power Plant. It was even to be published in Science magazine...

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2002/09/26/ciencia/1033059715.html

Four days later they recognized it was a deliverated lie...

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2002/09/27/ciencia/1033144110.html
Finrod said…
I'm suspicious of a purported mutation which flies in the face of bilateral symmerty so blatently.
Joffan said…
My guess is that someone noticed that the eyes look just like the plastic bump feet on kitchen doors or chopping boards, gave the fish an extra "eye" and circulated a photo for fun. Then someone sent it to a journo with story and t grew from there.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…