Wildlife Defies Chernobyl Radiation 612
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports that wildlife has reappeared in the Chernobyl region even with high levels of radiation. Populations of animals both common and rare have increased substantially and there are tantalizing reports of bear footprints and confirmed reports of large colonies of wild boars and wolves. These animals are radioactive but otherwise healthy. A large number of animals died initially due to problems like destroyed thyroid glands but their offspring seem to be physically healthy. Experiments have shown the DNA strands have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction. It is remarkable that such a phenomenon has occurred contrary to common assumptions about nuclear waste. The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers"
No suprise (Score:3, Interesting)
Radio Acive Pollin (Score:3, Interesting)
Anti-human (Score:2, Interesting)
> nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy
> developers and farmers
Well, that's not significantly more anti-human than passing laws preventing development of natural resources, is it? It's just more honest.
Controversial? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say less controversial and more hysterical. Of course, were I one of the animals being exposed to that "developer repellent" I'd might feel a bit differently.
Larry Niven [geocities.com] had some similar ideas, once upon a time.
Can we use it for good? (Score:3, Interesting)
But say we take, I dunno, the whole planet...and just douse it in some radiation. Just enough to cause a variety of small, minor mutations in a very large (or the entire) population.
1) Any ones that result in sterility are gone, end of story...
2) Lots of small minor mutations is more like tickling the DNA, whereas massive exposure and major mutations is more like kicking it. This results in a greater survival ratio.
Transiently accelerate evolution, yanno? Maybe the dinosaurs didn't all die off, but collectively evolved one day when the magnetic poles flipped, dropping the protection from the Sun's radiation, and everyone was exposed to just a bit too much radiation. *shrugs*
Regardless, I think it's almost dishonorable not to study the effect radiation had on nature. Those poor cells are suffering, aren't they? Don't make them suffer for nothing.
long-term effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Since these organisms have such short lifespans, there have been ample generations since the nuclear accident for the organisms to go locally extinct or mutate into different species. But, that has not been the case. These local populations have continued to survive without deleterious effects on the population level.
Populations of organisms with longer lifespans may take longer to recover to pre-blast levels (although from the sound of the article and my previous knowledge the opposite has occurred) and may experience a genetic bottleneck effect (which may be countered by mutations), but genomes are resiliant and it is unlikely that the populations would never recover.
Re:No suprise (Score:5, Interesting)
I would imagine animals and plantlife are not thriving or living as well as they should be. Radiation levels in outlaying areas have probbaly dropped to levels that allow life to screw faster then it is consumed by disease and cancer.
Heck people that lived in the chemical waste dump of Love Canal could still have kids... but in a toxic situation like that you're gon'a have a flipper baby or two, and life expectancy is going to be fairly bad.
This woman motorcycled through Chernobyl not to recently. In many parts radiation levels were safe enough for her to travel around. As I recall she carried a geiger counter, but didn't wear a radiation suit. She didn't venture around the epicenter of disaster, but she took a lot of rad photos, and saw wild life.
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/jou
But who knows, perhaps radiation has produced a race of super bears which are immune to nuclear weapons. If so, someone should notify Steven Colbert.
propaganda (Score:2, Interesting)
I live in South Australia, which has approximately 30% of the world's known uranium, and if we started selling it, we could (as a state) make a ton of money - probably more than the goldrush that helped some other Australian states.
I've noticed a _lot_ of (what I would describe as) pro-nuclear articles recently, and I'd put this article in the same basket. I read this article as containing spin to make nuclear radiation/contamination sound less dangerous than it really is so that the public is less wary of adopting nuclear electricity generation, with the associated dumping of radioactive waste.
I'm all for having informed debate regarding the use of nuclear power, and it's possible that in some cases nuclear power is the best option currently available - especially if augmented with wind/tidal/solar power. I don't think we'll see such debate though - there's simply too much money involved.
Diluting (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No suprise (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, sure, he didn't go into serious detail, but he did state that adaptation occurred.
Most likely, those creatures that did not become sterile from the effect of radiation on their gonads had one or another sort of duplicated gene set (it happens a lot). Their children would then be less suceptible to radiation poisoning and their children less still. Eventually these animals would have a full or more duplicate of their entire DNA.
Those who suffered ill effects from it (ie: the animal equivalent of downs syndrome) would be less likely to survive, and so the ones that didnt - those that have mutated enough genetic machinery to allow such a duplication to exist (probably a small percentage, but a seed nonetheless) - would be more likely to propagate.
So yes, mother nature adapts. Mother nature is a generalized term for things on the cellular level that 'just happen'. It's not retarded, it's shorthand for those who don't feel like thinking too hard about a subject.
I mean, unless you think it was the noodly appendage of Our Lord, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Re:But ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with nuclear energy is not that it can be unsafe. Of course it can
The problem is that society wants an absolute, iron-clad guarantee that a particular technology is safe
You simply cannot have your cake and eat it too, at least not in the context of our current technology.
Sure, you can promote tidal power, wind power, solar power or {insert favorite alternative energy source here}. If such a source is going to generate enough power to significantly offset our use of fossil fuuels it will have economic and environmental impact, probably serious ones. Worse yet, none of them are really energy-dense enough to handle our power needs. Take a typical 2400 megawatt nuclear plant for example. Yes, they are very expensive, but so would be the physical plant required to generate and store enough solar power to provide the same level of service. Regardless, we (for a variety of reasons) may choose to make that investment. But we'd best do it with our eyes open and be willing to accept the downsides of whatever road (or roads) we decide to travel.
More interesting than you might think? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Radio Acive Pollin (Score:3, Interesting)
Animal Mortality (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:propaganda (Score:1, Interesting)
We certainly could not financially support the EPA directive with the flat tax imposed now. The money we have saved is tagged to be used for the construction and operating cost of the Yucca Mountain facility. The original intention was for this to be a permanent home for spent fuel but as time progresses it is being seen more as a temporary resting place before the fuel is used again.
While there is certainly no right answer, I personally think that the true cost to society of storing the reprocessed waste for ~300 years would still be lower than the cost (considering externalities) of using coal to generate the same amount of energy. I contend that I would rather have a vitrified block of nuclear waste than an atmosphere full of fossil fuel waste, but it is hard to say in the long run which poses a larger threat.
There are still more exotic means of disposal on the horizon such as using the earths subduction zones to get rid of the waste. The argument that leaving the waste behind for future generations is irresponsible is certainly valid but it is just as irresponsible as what we are doing now with fossil fuels.
Chernobyl as environmental protection (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me assure you, this is no protection against greedy developers. In our own city (Chesapeake), there is a section called Deep Creek that had a dump. Said greedy developers wanted to develop said dump; local residents fought it on the basis of contamination and danger to homeowners. Said developer waited twenty years until said homeowners no longer had the strength or will to say said statements before the zoning board. Then the City Council quietly gave permission, after which a housing development was built upon said dump, and after that homeowners discovered trash and contamination under their houses. Said houses had to be destroyed, said developer profited and moved on, said city council bided their time, and in the end only the purchasers were hurt, as far as I know. Said greedy developers will not be stopped by so minor a thing as radiation in the way of their profit.
Enough said.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No suprise (Score:5, Interesting)
Those pictures turned out to be a hoax. The story was covered here.
My wife and I recently went on a tour of the Nevada Test Site [google.com] when we were in Las Vegas several weeks ago. These tours are arranged by the Department of Energy which outsources them to a private firm. Essentially you ride around on a bus in the Nevada Test Site all day and get a really cool tour of the blast sites, the craters, the house, the rails, etc. Unfortunately the tour does not allow cameras. As for us, we figured we have no plans to ever have any kids anyway and so we signed up for the waiting list. We got in on a cancellation and ended up on a bus full of senior citizens with our tour guide, Ernie, with decades of experience in the atomic testing program. Ernie tended to downplay the safety implications of the testing done on the site. Well, he did mention the leaks and accidents but his voice dropped really low whenever he talked about them... he used the phrase "well, I make no bones about it". Whenever Ernie's voice dropped, you could look out the window and the bus would be passing a fenced area along the side of the road with big scary RADIOACTIVE signs at regular intervals fighting to stay visible above the grass. Ernie was a trip. If you are interested in a tour of the Nevada Test Site go soon while Ernie is still alive to be your tour guide.
Re:But ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Since the average human carries 25 to 75 lethal genes (depending on which study you believe), a high level of spontaenous "natural selection at work" should be no surprise.
Re:No suprise (Score:3, Interesting)
As to the deformed calf, it's possible within the species; genes for similar deformities already exist. Could be whatever was a weak point in the genome that gave rise to similar mutations, is also a weak point that can be assaulted by radiation. (A theory I made up this very instant, but even so seems quite logical.)
Or it could be a matter of radiation exposure at a certain stage of development; frex, if you expose canine fetuses to high radiation during the first trimester, they can be born hairless and with stunted limbs.
I live in an area with relatively high levels of natural radiation due to uranium deposits. We see a lot of deformed carrion beetles (big black desert "stink beetles"), which I've never observed anywhere else. Some of the deformed beetles behave normally, others seem sluggish and confused; some have very thin shells, or are oddly shaped (some seem to get along all right, others aren't really viable), or are oversized. As I've not observed oddities in other insects, it's hard to pin this on the background radiation, but a person sure has to wonder.
Re:But ... (Score:1, Interesting)
if not that adaption (in eukaryotes) has
never been seen so quickly, and radition actually interferes with adaption so profoundly, and evolution is assumed to be mostly neutral.
One would have assumed that radiotion increases the mutation rate to levels that kill the population entirely; but it seems that the fact that we do reproduce sexually saves us from this happening (a theoretical phenomenon called Muller's Ratchett in asexual species).
So yet -- it is something curious indeed.
Wrong Conclusion (Score:2, Interesting)
The chronic effects of the lingering radioactivity may not show for a long time.
I think the evidence presented (if true) says more about the general influence of people than it does about the health effects of radioactivity. Human occupation is seriously disruptive to the biodiversity of an ecosytem.
Re:While we're doing movie quotes (Score:3, Interesting)
Though it had limited use.
The one place it worked well was on the user home dirs. Quickly got to see who's accounts were bloated well above the average. Seing it as a bunch of 3D objects allows your brain to use the visual centers to perform averaging functions and such, much like the current GPGPU effort now that I think about it
-nB