Radioactive hybrid terror pigs have made themselves a home in Fukushima's exclusion zone Scientists have uncovered a new threat to humanity emerging in the area surrounding the former Fukushima nuclear power plant: indestructible radioactive hybrid terror pigs. The details emerged from studies of how radiation from the partial nuclear meltdown at the plant in 2011 had affected local wildlife, which has in many …
Fairly certain Human-Bear-Pigs are a real thing. Photographic evidence is available. Last one I saw was being hunted in the wee small hours, (ok, chatted up and felt up), by a mate after a suitably large amounts of beer. Pre-Covid.
Not sure if he mistook her for a curry or what. But he'll never live that one down.
No one would have believed in the last first years of the nineteenth twenty-first century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.
Yet across the gulf of space Sea of Japan, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.
Yeah, agreed. Like "wild" camping and "wild" swimming. Back in my day, it was just camping and swimming. Camp grounds were usually, at best, a farmers field which might or might not have a shower/toilet block. Swimming pools have been around for a long time, but swimming in the sea, lakes and rivers was fairly normal too. Maybe it's because I grew up in an age where every school child was taught to swim and there were lots of awareness campaigns about swimming safely in the outdoors.
I think it's a sad reflection on society that we have to call everything outside the managed and risk-averse city as "wild something" to make sure people see it as a risk instead of them actually having a life-time learned sense of risk.
The Japanese, for obvious reasons, have an aversion to non-natural levels of radiation, but from what I gather, the levels have been safe for a long time now.
>I think it's a sad reflection on society that we have to call everything outside the managed and risk-averse city as "wild something"
Perhaps it is because far more than the city is managed and risk-averse, coralled and commercialised. Places we visited and activities we enjoyed spontaneously must now make money for someone. The fences and gates have been put up, the ticket sheds built and the "fun" organised.
Not just profiteers, mind, but lawyers and liability suits. Once upon a time, tromping through the woods or fields was just what kids did (or, at least what THIS kid did). Certainly someone owned that land, but I don't recall anyone giving that a second thought. Now everyone's got fences and 'no trespassing' signs, probably on lawyers' advice lest someone get sued to hell and back if some kid does something stupid, gets hurt, and property owner is deemed to not have done "enough" to prevent said mishap.
I have no idea what the geology of Japan is like, or whether they have radioactive granite.
Curiously, Fukushima used to bottle and sell it's radioactive water as a health tonic. AFAIK the mineral spring is still there, and still producing radioactive water for local wildlife to drink. A minor detail that gets glossed over when rad-fudders hype up the 'deadly' radiation from the nuclear plants, and ignore the natural background stuff.
All the places I have lived in the last 20 odd years have had high radon levels - just a fact of life due to the geology of many parts of the UK (some of which were mentioned above).
Sadly lacking in any superpowers / glowing in the dark / advantageous mutations from it all.
"Sadly lacking in any superpowers / glowing in the dark / advantageous mutations from it all."
Radon is a radioactive gas that can accumulate inside buildings in some UK areas. Higher statistics for lung cancer correlate with those areas - usually in combination with other carcinogenic stimuli.
In Northern Ireland we had problems with Caesium-137 for a long time after Chernobyl (I think it was also a problem in Wales) as sheep graze on uplands where the soil is shallow and the grass roots kept recycling the Caesium. In lowland pastures where the soil is deeper it gets washed down out of the way of the roots. The solution was to graze for less time on the uplands and bring the sheep down to graze lower down so that when they went to market the Bequerels per kilo were low enough. Try not to think too hard about it when eating your lamb chop.
It's possible that around Fukushima trees are recycling it and the pigs are snuffing up Caesium-137 loaded acorns.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27131868/
Ready-Brek adverts became an obvious source for UK nuclear facility leak parodies. Not hard to see why.
But wild is from Old English "wilde" meaning "in a natural state". So I'm not sure what you mean. The word "dehumanise" that you used usually refers to a human, as in to remove a humans positive human qualities. So to allow a landscape to return to nature is to return it to the wild (to make natural) rather than to dehumanise.
I do not know who invents these new words but this one is particularly horrible.
The OED notes that the verb “wild”, although rare, goes back nearly eight centuries:
1225 Ancr. R. 136 Vet kelf & to wilde is þet fleschs þet awiligeð [MS. T. wildes] so sone hit euer etteð.
Since “re-” is one of the most productive verbal prefixes in modern English, “re-wild” isn’t an unreasonable combination.
I couldn't make out what
Vet kelf & to wilde is þet fleschs þet awiligeð [MS. T. wildes] so sone hit euer etteð.
meant so for fun I put it into Google translate.
Google translated said "ICELANDIC - DETECTED" and translated it to "ENGLISH" for me. I couldn't see any difference in the English version.
Who are you calling archaic? I come from Birmingham, and as far as I know, our Bill Shakespeare, champion of the English language, probably spoke in something close to a Brummie accent. Well more accurately, Black Country, but let's not go there, because it really is a foreign country. On the other hand, the northeast of England is infested with Vikings, which explains the speech mannerisms of Ant and Dec.
... ouch!
We now have two major instances of wild-life successfully moving into areas which have been evacuated. It raises questions of how they are able to do this given that the radioactivity levels are reckoned to be lethal. Is this selection of species and maybe even individuals of species which are more tolerant? Are the estimates of lethal levels too low?
Probably the former, I suspect. There are parallels in that a few select plant species are capable of living on soil conaminated by lead mining, for example.
valid question. Would be nice to know the answer(s).
But a few other /possible/ answers:
1) radiation may not be the greatest risk animals face. Dying of old age in the animal kingdom is not overly common, I suspect.
2) the expected time for exposure to cause a significant increase in obvious mortality may not have elapsed yet (i.e., maybe it takes 15 years to see a lot of impact, but only 11 years have gone by)
3) the animals may not live long enough for the radiation to have a significant impact.
4) we aren't giving these pigs colonoscopies and MRIs to determine what is actually happening inside them -- they may be quite sick, we just can't tell. Or there may be multi-generational problems.
Got to remember, radiation poisoning is not like on Star Trek where after X hours, everyone dies (and a magic fix happens thirty seconds before and everyone is just fine). It's a game of chance, increases in exposure levels or duration just changes the chance. Humans are much more obsessed about increases in the chance of dying than the animal kingdom is (not saying that's a bad thing).
"4) we aren't giving these pigs colonoscopies and MRIs to determine what is actually happening inside them -- they may be quite sick, we just can't tell. Or there may be multi-generational problems."
No, they won't receive any preventative medical care but I suspect they are getting some very detailed autopsies. The conclusion of which will almost always be "bullet trauma".
Radiation effects on germ-line cells can produce mutations in any species' offspring. If they survive to breeding age then the mutations may be passed to the next generation. Genomes have sufficient redundancy to allow them to be resilient to non-lethal mutations. Natural selection then throws the dice.
This post has been deleted by its author
Would you worry about this if your definite article had been chopped off? Mind you, you'd probably utter "get me to the f*ing hospital" rather than "get me to hospital".
Roads are another case where the definite article is often deployed, whereas you won't see it on Street. King's Road in Chelsea is often referred to as The King's Road, because I suppose it was at one time. But you won't get The King Street. I was going to say this is peculiar to roads, but there's The Bishops Avenue which is perhaps used to signify the one everyone knows. This raises an anomaly, there's no apostrophe in Bishops. Maybe because nobody knows if it is referring to one bishop or many.
Southern California (e.g. Los Angeles) inserts a definite article before Interstate Highway numbers, such as "the I-10" where in northern California (e.g. SF Bay Area) doesn't, such as "I-80".
No idea why (or why not), but you can tell a transplanted newscaster by which way they do it.
Perhaps the “the” is used with interstate freeways with one-syllable numbers; as it happens, parts of both the I-5 and the I-10 are found in southern California. Do native newscasters also say “the I-15”, “the I-210”, and “the I-405”? Do they say “the 101” (“the one-oh-one”) in reference to US routes?
"This raises an anomaly, there's no apostrophe in Bishops"
IIRC many UK councils have a policy of omitting apostrophes in street names - even when replacing old signs that included them. A friend lives in a street named after a farmer's meadow on which the houses were built. The street sign omits the possessive apostrophe - so just "Farmers Meadow".
Similarly, the US Board on Geographic Names almost entirely excludes possessive apostrophes from the names of geographic features. The only exceptions to date are:
The first reference for “math” in the OED suggests that “math” came from the abbreviation “math.” — it dates back to 1890. In contrast, the earliest reference for “maths” is from 1911. Similarly, “economics” and “statistics” in the US were called “ec” and “stat” by students (presumably in reference to courses of study), from their abbreviations “ec.” and “stat.”. I’d imagine that “home ec” is still used here in the States more often than “home economics”. There isn’t an entry for “ecs” being used anywhere for “economics”, though.
It raises questions of how they are able to do this given that the radioactivity levels are reckoned to be lethal.
The report referenced has a map showing the background radiation level. It is interesting to note that the highest radiation level is in quite a small area. Even more interesting is that the radiation level there is roughly a third of what can be found on a naturally radioactive beach in Brazil where people are happy to relax and enjoy themselves.
A high dose of radiation in a short time will kill you. That same dose spread over a long time is perfectly natural and will have no consequence. It's a non linear relationship. Unfortunately people like straight line relationships so maximum safe human dose is derived as a (linear) fraction of a lethal high dose.
"
A high dose of radiation in a short time will kill you. That same dose spread over a long time is perfectly natural and will have no consequence.
"
Yup. Just like eating a large amount of salt at one time will kill you very quickly, but the same amount spead over a long period is not only harmless, but very necessary. Same is true of a great many substances (including water).
The radiation from Fukashima is detectable & will reduce in time. We know it's there and can avoid the area until it's decayed. It is highly unlikely that it will cause 18000 deaths before humanity self-destructs or the sun runs out of hydrogen. The only way to avoid tsunamis is to not live near the sea as the are unpredictable and non-preventable. Remember the Boxing Day tsunami? That killed 225000 people.
I would also suggest that tsunamis do not kill people in an instant. Those that get tangled up in debris during the flood stage may die fairly quickly but the rest get swept out to sea where they drown; that does not happen instantaneously and they will suffer badly before they die :-(
escaped radiation will kill people slowly and/or considerably shorten lifespans
The point is it wont. The "Linear No-Threshold model" you are using to make that prediction says that, but common sense and real world experience (e.g. people on beaches in Brazil) shows that model to be hopelessly wrong for low level radiation.
No, Cs-137 is reckoned to be lethal, but the levels really are not so lethal.
The stupidity lies in " Indeed, surveys of the local boar population found they are contaminated by up to 300 times the safe human dosage of the lethal isotope caesium-137 [PDF]. "
The "safe limit" according to the PDF is set at 4 millirem/year. The pigs were exposed to 300 times that, which is 1200 millirem / year.
1200 millirem is pitifully non-lethal. It is equivalent to 12 millisieverts, where 4-5 Sieverts is actually the LD50/30 value for acute radiation exposure in humans.
And we're talking per year, so we'd probably assume the LD50 to be even higher for a dose spread over a whole year.
So while Cs-137 itself certainly is lethal, the "safe limit" is set so low, that even "300 times the safe limit" while sounding really scary, it is still 400 times lower than the dose that might kill you.
The disconnect between these "safe limits" and what is actually an "unsafe level" is IMO one of the main things that has killed the nuclear industry. Radiation is so easily "detectable" but impossible to see and therefore impossible for the public to quantify what the detector reading means.
So we set the limits based on a model that basically says "there is no safe limit", so we will set it at background. And because Cs-137 is a short-lived isotope, background for that isotope is basically zero.
Radiation levels were never deemed to be lethal, just above what is deemed by Japan to be an acceptably safe level. "Safe" is based on a level that is below that which could have any detrimental effect rather than being deadly. e.g. increased probability of getting cancer over a lifetime.
Ideally, Governments introduce regulations to avoid negative results.
By restricting exposure to even relatively low radiation levels, they reduce the burden on their health care system.
This imposes hopefully minor constraints on behaviour for a net benefit to the nation.
Problems arise where people disagree as to the hardship of the constraints or the value of the benefit e.g. losing the family home to avoid cancer in 20 years time, or having to wear a facemask and get a vaccination versus uncontrolled proliferation and mutation of a global pandemic...
Caesium 137 isn't actually 'highly radioactive', as the article claims. It has a halflife of about 30 years, which means it's mildly radioactive - the longer the halflife, the slower something decays, so the less radiation it gives off per unit of time.
The levels of caesium in the pigs would give a human cancer in the longer term, but probably isn't a problem in the natural lifespan of the animals.
Those magnificent boars
With their flying new genes
They go up tiddly-up-up
They go down tiddly-down-down
They enchant all the boffins
And steal all the scenes
With their up tiddly-up-up
And their down tiddly-down-down
Up, down, flying around
Looping the loop and defying the ground
They're all frightfully keen
Those magnificent boars with their mutated genes
They can fly upside down with their feet in the air
They don't sweat radiation, they really don't care
Newton would think he had made a mistake
To see those young boars and the chances they take
Those magnificent boars
With their mutated genes
They go up-tiddly-up-up
They go down-tiddly-down-down
They enchant all the boffins
And steal all the scenes
With their up-tiddly-up-up
And their down-tiddly-down-down
Up, down,…
"What’s the difference?"
None if it is a political cartoon of the current British PM.
Cross breeding with domestic pigs means litter sizes increase.
Cross breeding with domestic pigs is an epiphenomenon.
It's one of the reasons for the boar population explosion in France. Along with hunters illicitly feeding them too.
If hunters had a role to explain the boar population explosion 30 years ago, they cannot be blamed for the situation occurring since 20 years. Boar population explosion isn't a French phenomenon, it happens in other countries in Europe, and elsewhere.
Why do boars proliferate? There are several reasons:
"- The wild boar itself: the most prolific ungulate in Europe, virtually predator-free, with tremendous adaptability both in terms of food and habitat.
- Climate change, operating on two levels: it promotes the demographic vitality of wild boars via the abundance of the acorn, which has a direct impact on reproduction; it reduces winter and spring mortality.
- The evolution of territories, again at two levels: the extension of certain crops, foremost among which is corn; the multiplication of non-huntable or non-huntable refuge areas, linked to official nature reserves, animal "sanctuaries", road and rail rights-of-way, rural wastelands due to agricultural abandonment and wastelands and other non-huntable peri-urban areas. "
You didn't read my post nor the links I provided, did you?
Google: "chasseur condamné pour nourrire sanglier" and see how many hits there are.
When I do the search ""chasseur condamné" "nourrir" "sanglier", I get 102 results. One fifth are from anti-hunting sites.
Explain me how French hunters are responsible for boars proliferation in Spain, Italy, Poland, Germany or the Czech Republic?
- Climate change, operating on two levels: it promotes the demographic vitality of wild boars via the abundance of the acorn, which has a direct impact on reproduction; it reduces winter and spring mortality.
Bah humbug. Sure, CO2 fertilisation is beneficial to wildlife given it increases crop yields. But boars are far less sensitive to the teeny amounts of global warming than the average Bbc or Grauniad writer/reader. But by the same reckoning, it also reduces winter & spring mortality amongst humans, because cold tends to lead to more excess deaths than warmth.
Biggest impact is lack of predation and anti-hunters. But boars are a pest in Europe and the US, causing much damage to crops, wildlife, and the occasional human who discovers that boar tusks vs femoral arteries is bad.
Heat waves are supposedly higher cause of death than cold.
first result from google search
"According to the World Health Organization, heat waves are considered among the most dangerous of natural hazards but rarely receive adequate attention because their death tolls and destruction are not always immediately obvious. From 1998 to 2017, more than 166,000 people around the world died because of heat waves"
Heat waves are supposedly higher cause of death than cold.first result from google search
How.. reliable. Alternatively-
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/cold-deemed-deadlier-than-heat-when-it-comes-to-weather-deaths-1.3081053
Cold temperatures kill about 20 times as many people worldwide as hot temperatures do, say Canadian and international researchers who challenge conventional wisdom that extreme weather events cause the most deaths.
In a study published Wednesday in the medical journal The Lancet, researchers analyzed data on 74 million deaths across countries with climates ranging from cold to subtropical between 1985 and 2012.
But such is politics. Simple enough theory to test. Stand outside in -40C and +40C, see which makes you die first. But like the article says, there can be a problem with bias. So because global warming, the warming tends to get exagerated. This is also why we're being told to super-insulate our homes. Which is also a bit of an issue with Canada, give although it's heatwave isn't 'unprecedented', it's more adapted to cold weather than hot.
Stand outside in -40C and +40C, see which makes you die first
how about, see how long you survive in temperatures 10 degrees above human core temperature, versus 10 degrees below... which puts the range at about 48 to 28..
Which environment you live in is a matter of personal circumstances... I work in >40 C half the year, and am actually fairly comfortable there.
The proportion of humanity, possibly not including Canadians and Russians, that are exposed to -40 is probably much lower than those that see >40, and this disparity will get worse as climate change progresses.
Worst case, direct temperature related deaths will be trivial anyway, compared to famine and dislocation brought about by droughts and cascading agricultural failures...
Worst case, direct temperature related deaths will be trivial anyway, compared to famine and dislocation brought about by droughts and cascading agricultural failures...
Ah, the sky is still gonna fall. But nope. Much like radiation, the more you learn about it, the less terrifying it seems. Unless you're 'learning' from Minitruth. See for example-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57697875
BBC Bitesize has removed references to the "benefits" of climate change on its website, following complaints online.
...Climate expert and writer George Monbiot called the list, which has now been removed, "an absolute disgrace".
"This is what BBC Bitesize is teaching our children about climate breakdown," the Guardian journalist tweeted.
"I'm sorry, but it's an absolute disgrace. You could come away thinking: 'On balance, it sounds pretty good'."
Monbiot isn't a 'climate expert', he's an alarmist Grauniad hack. But a neat example of Minitruth both ignoring the science, and being literally revisionist. Can't have kids going off-message after all the hours spent by the likes of Harrabin & Monbiot convincing them there's not only global warming, but a climate 'breakdown'.
Which is about as unscientific as it gets, but ooh.. scarey. And the actual IPCC reports support the original Bbc version. There will be benefits from global warming and elevated CO2. We're seeing that already in the 'greening of the Earth'.
So where are the cold numbers from 1998 to 2017. I've got a Ben Franklin they are higher. Don't you find this interesting? "All of a suddenly" heat wave death tolls and destruction are "not immediately obvious". Because we want to scare everyone into thinking they are going to melt, we are going to scoop up a bunch of deaths distantly 'related' to a heat wave, and add them in. Gawd people are so easily manipulated.
More cochons means that there is more hunting. Where town & village mayors then pay the hunters to perform culls. Even on land that is normally <<chasse interdite>>.
The gun-happy hunters love shooting where they normally are not allowed.
Maybe because there's more chance of killing cyclists, people passing in cars or old ladies sat in their own gardens reading books.
Re: Hunting wild pigs/boars it is not killing for the fun of it. They are a serious pest! They have no real predictors especially in places where the natural predictors are gone, i.e. wolves. They are very destructive, they breed like rats and they destroy habitat for other wild animals. Like stated in the article when bread with domestic pigs they have larger litters. (In the US most wild pigs are feral domestic pigs).
The problem at least here in the US is the meat from these pigs is not very useful, even dogs find it rather unpalatable.
I am not a hunter but it annoys me when people who are clueless talk about hunting being cruel! We have driven natural predators out of many areas and then the natural fauna like deer can overpopulate their now limited habitat causing starvation in the winter. Hunting is the only answer to keep the herds healthy.
Here in France hunting is a pastime where drunk people brandish weapons and try to intimidate people. Personally I think the US has the right idea. If hikers and mountain bikers etc were allowed to carry sidearms the drunk thugs might think twice. The prospect of a nice, tight 3 round grouping would calm them down.
Wild pigs, i.e. boars are a huge nuisance all over the southern US. They take over habitat reducing food for natural fauna, they are a pest to farmers and ranchers, they are a serious problem in the Florida everglades. Hunting is encouraged, the problem the wild boar/pig meat is not of much use. It tastes terrible! They are extremity dangerous as well, dogs used to hunt them need to wear Kevlar vests to protect them from the tusks.
Most of the wild pigs/boars in the US are the result of escaped domestic pigs. Amazing how that change one left go feral.
(Swine are not native to the western hemisphere)
I spent the early '80s in the army, stationed in SE Georgia (the state, not the country).
Feral pigs were quite a problem, enough that we would sometimes stop patrolling and circle up when the pigs were checking us out at night. Got bad enough that some of us would carry a magazine of live rounds (as opposed to blanks, and carefully segregated from them), or personal sidearms. It was a well-known secret, and officers/NCOs never made an issue of it. The pigs did not seem particularly impressed when we shot blanks, but artillery simulators made them scatter!
I suspect things might be different these days.
> In some cases the aggressive porkers have refused to give ground and have attacked returning humans,
The Tower of London Royal Armouries Collection has just the thing - a boar sword
Note the description "...boar-swords could also be equipped with a bar or 'stop' below the edged part of the blade. This prevents the wounded animal from 'running up' the blade and savaging the hunter at close quarter."
Icon: the most appropriate one for a sword that dates from 1530-1570
I'd expect him to be properly equipped with his choice of weapon, but success depends on:
any error in either step can have serious consequences. That's the fun of the sport, right?
I just like saying "indestructible radioactive hybrid terror pigs"
"contaminated by up to 300 times the safe human dosage" and still apparently fine - so does that mean our "safe human dosage" is horribly low and bogus?
Are there any plans to capture a few and see how long they live, and if they do show any radiation effects?
"does that mean our "safe human dosage" is horribly low and bogus?"
Yes and no. The reason is that what we call "safe" is extremely different from what a boar would call "safe". We want to save everyone, while nature only cares about overall death rates. A 200% increase in cancer rates would be utterly intolerable for humans, but it's negligible for boars.
A given dose increases your chance of cancer or other serious malady per year by X%, so the probability of it actually occurring depends of your lifespan.
A boar lives around 15-20 years, so the lifetime risk is far lower than a human with their ridiculous 80-100 year lifespans.
What's the life expectancy of a boar, leaving aside the effect of people with guns? 20 years? Wikipedia says 10-15 years. Humans, it's more like 80-90 years.
The question we're asking here is 'what are the chances of this thing causing cancer before death occurs for other reasons'. Obviously, the chances of it happening in 10-15 years are much lower than of it happening in 80-90 years, assuming the carcinogenic effect is static over time.
The other part is that we are quite conservative about what we consider the acceptable risk of cancer. It's not just 'won't happen in one lifetime, on average', because there are lots of people. We tend to prefer 'won't happen in a thousand lifetimes' as our standard.
Think Darwin. Radiation can mutate the germ-line cells at any age without obvious symptoms. Reaching breeding age may then pass on the mutations to the next generation. What effect those mutations would have on the offsprings' viability and survival is a moot point.
Some potentially life-shortening recessive gene variants may provide "carriers" with immunity against local diseases. eg Sickle Cell Anaemia protects against malaria; Cystic Fibrosis can protect against typhoid.
Natural selection in those conditions ensures the variant is retained in the local germ line. In Italy there was an education programme to inform people about Sickle Cell Anaemia. The result was the locals started to avoid marrying SCA carriers. So the SCA carriers had to marry each other - raising the incidence of a child inheriting the full-blown condition. At the same time the general population lost their immunity to malaria - just as the malarial mosquito was resurgent.
Anyhoo... Having been on the receiving end of tusked obstinacy regarding who owns what patch of forest (i have the deeds) my preferred method of dealing with these trottered terrors is a machete and a short sword.... whilst snarling (in the manner of Crocodile Dundee) "call those tusks, these are tusks" and going at them. They leg it. Hopefully I'm moving into the Matrix for this autumn and it'll be "guns, I need lots of guns".
Oh and a couple of freezers.
Our only chance to face the threat of a wild boar army is to deploy an army of Gérard Depardieu clones who, thanks to his Obélix characterization, will be the only thing those boars will fear.
The question is what do we prefer as our new overlords.
Also, we must account for the cost of plastic bottles if we were to deploy the Depardieu army by air.
"Pigsy (猪八戒, Cho Hakkai), a pig monster consumed with lust and gluttony, who was expelled from Heaven after harassing the Star Princess Vega—the Jade Emperor's mistress—for a kiss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)
If the pilgrims were to journey through and area of radioactive contamination, Pigsy will be on steriods...
Pretty sure the passenger pigeon would disagree. Except they're extinct.
And there was that Chinese famine caused after they killed all the birds which brought down the food chain causing overabundance of insects and then famine. Though considering millions of humans also died, maybe that should go down as a draw?
It has all kicked off people, just like George Orwell predicted in "Animal Farm". You got to watch out for the damn pigs (Old Major, Napoleon, and Snowball).
But luckily we have guns and they have mud, I think we will be OK this time anyhow.
But we really need to plan ahead for the next time, whatever happens we can never let the damn dirty apes get their stinking paws on guns.
What ever happened to the word feral? Re-wilding appears to be neologism for the sake of making a neologism.
Based on conversations the bulk of the knowledge about 'RADIATION, RADIOACTIVITY and NUUUCLEAR' appear to have learned from old 1950 films where a bomb blast is shown with a voice over speaking of the dangers of the unknown (Them comes to the top along with TV's Outer Limits). Where these people that in the vicinity of a granite dike that indicates a higher read than that taken near the nuclear plant that they're complaining about. Ah the difference between 'natural' and 'artificial'.
Any word if the feral swine is GMO free?
(Don't know if anyone will see this, given the volume of comments, but...)
In Amazon's Our Man in Japan, James May spends a bit of time with a man who declined to move away from his home near Fukushima. It was quite moving – the city he lives in is nearly deserted.
Of course, the same was true of the village May visits in Shikoku, the smallest of the major islands, which has seen a large population drain over the past several decades. It's lovely but much of it is deserted, and apparently largely free of radioactive terror-pigs.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
