Can Pollution Cause Genetic Mutations in Future Generations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter i_wish_i_was_smart
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dna Pollution
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential impact of pollution on genetic mutations in future generations, referencing a study conducted on mice. Participants explore the implications of pollution on health and genetics, as well as the viability of nuclear power as a cleaner energy alternative.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant cites a study indicating that pollution can alter DNA in mice, leading to genetic mutations passed down to offspring, while other groups exposed to clean air showed no such mutations.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about public perceptions of nuclear power, suggesting that misinformation leads to unwarranted fear despite statistical safety data.
  • A different viewpoint discusses the distinction between threat assessment and threat perception, arguing that the public often misinterprets statistical risks.
  • One participant emphasizes the adaptability of species under stress, questioning the definition of "healthy" in the context of the study's findings.
  • A participant reiterates the need for cleaner energy sources, advocating for a reduction in pollution and a shift towards more efficient nuclear power generation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of pollution and the safety of nuclear energy. There is no consensus on the best approach to addressing pollution or the public's understanding of associated risks.

Contextual Notes

Participants do not clarify the specific mechanisms by which pollution causes genetic mutations, nor do they resolve the definitions of health and safety in the context of energy production.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the intersections of environmental science, genetics, public health, and energy policy.

i_wish_i_was_smart
Messages
91
Reaction score
1
a new study at McMasters University in Toronto has discovered that polution can alter your DNA, the research were done on mice, three categories, the first category lived in the middle of an industrial zone brething in heavily poluted air, the second lived on a farm with clean air, and the third lived in the industrial zone but breathing air filtered by a hepafilter(sp?), it was shown that after 10 week the first group had sufered a genetic mutation and that mutation was passed down to their offsprings, the next 2 groups suffered nothing, they were both healthy.

now my question is this, given that a large amount of time people breath in poluted air, mutation arises, wouldn't it be safer to cut down more on polution, take away most of the coal and gas power generators and replace them with more effecient nuclear generators, since now nuclar PPs are over 200% safer than Chernobyl, they are more effecient, and less harful to us and the environment, what do you guys think?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
All sounds well and good but there are always whiners who protest. Just cos of Chernobyl. However a lot of protesters don't know the facts properly, and nuclear power plants are very safe and efficient. Stupid whining greenpeace :devil:
 
i agree, there is threat assesment, which educated people use to determine their stance, those people look at all the stats never leaving one behind.
then there is threat perception, what the general public uses to make their opinion, those people use the past and the fear factor of not knowing to make their opinion, it is said that the general public can not understand a statistic over 1 in 10000, even though 1 in 1000000 means their is less threat they can't understand it there fore it is just "another" statistic
 
Life adapts

i_wish_i_was_smart said:
a new study at McMasters University in Toronto has discovered that polution can alter your DNA, the research were done on mice, three categories, the first category lived in the middle of an industrial zone brething in heavily poluted air, the second lived on a farm with clean air, and the third lived in the industrial zone but breathing air filtered by a hepafilter(sp?), it was shown that after 10 week the first group had sufered a genetic mutation and that mutation was passed down to their offsprings, the next 2 groups suffered nothing, they were both healthy.

now my question is this, given that a large amount of time people breath in poluted air, mutation arises, wouldn't it be safer to cut down more on polution, take away most of the coal and gas power generators and replace them with more effecient nuclear generators, since now nuclar PPs are over 200% safer than Chernobyl, they are more effecient, and less harful to us and the environment, what do you guys think?

Why are you surprised? :confused:

If a species is stressed it adapts or dies. :approve:

And how do you define healthy? :confused:
 
berty said:
Why are you surprised? :confused:

If a species is stressed it adapts or dies. :approve:

And how do you define healthy? :confused:
i never said i was surprised,
by healthy i meant no changes in those mice, not geneticaly or anything