

Do Animals in Chernobyl’s Fallout Zone Glow? - sheri
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/wildlife_in_chernobyl_debate_over_mutations_and_populations_of_plants_and.single.html

======
stevoski
I visited Chernobyl a couple of years ago and was stunned by the amount of
large fish in the waterways (a canal now cut off from the Dnieper river,
IIRC). It seemed you could almost walk from bank to bank on the swarming fish.

It made me wonder if this is what European waterways were generally like
before us humans fished and fished and fished and polluted the Rhine, Danube,
Volga, Dnieper, and other major European rivers.

~~~
huxley
Apparently this forest on the border between Belarus and Poland is quite
amazing (It was mentioned in "The World Without Us"):

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Białowieża_Forest>

------
DanBC
This is a nice article. There's a problem with a lot of science reporting that
people just report the controversy. Most people cannot assess a scientific
paper (if the article bothers to link to the actual research) and so it'd be
great if media could do a breakdown - "suitable sample?" "randomised?"
"controlled?" "peer reviewed?".

Some old reports:

Wildlife preserve not scientifically justified
(<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6946210.stm>)

Significant impact on biodiversity and population numbers (but also that this
is a polarised debate) (<http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14250489>)

Chernobyl birds have small brains
([http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9387000/938...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9387000/9387395.stm))

Insect decline (<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7949314.stm>)

------
pm90
I would like to know the opinion of others more knowledgeable: can't it just
be because humans have such a long life span? So, maybe the animals die before
the radiation actually has any effect?

~~~
mpyne
Cancer is kind of associated with long life span in general, even without
external radiation flux, but there are other ways that radiation can be
harmful. A given amount of radiation received is more likely to damage cells
that quickly divide (especially gametes) and cells that have little or no
provision for repair.

So at relatively high levels of radiation you could well see that individual
organisms tend to do well enough but have children with more birth defects,
are more frail, have their vision deteriorate faster, etc.

I'm not sure that the radiation levels even in the Chernobyl exclusion zone
are high enough for that, necessarily, but there's unfortunately a pretty wide
gulf between "no effect" and developing cancer.

------
fredgrott
the problem with some parts of the article is that in the hard high level
contaminated parts we have small animal populations and in the exclusion zone
parts not highly contaminated we increasing animal populations coming form
other areas. Without some way methodology to weigh or readjust the numbers
with new weights any study will generate error prone conclusions.

Not only that but when an animal has a shorter life-span due to radiation
where do the effects show up? Its not showing in the population increase as
the dying happens after the animal has given its maximum number of offspring
as the study is studying long-term radiation effects from long-term radiation.

------
speeder
Well... one cool thing about Chernobyl is those black mushrooms in the
reactor, that do radiosyntesys (yes, they "eat" radiation, awesome).

But no, they don't glow, quite the opposite (they absorb a wide range of
electromagnetic frequencies to its internal use).

~~~
ultramundane8
Could you provide a link for more information about those mushrooms?

I like thinking about those natural anomalies that you know some brilliant
mind will attempt to mimic with technology, and that is one function that
could have serious potential.

~~~
speeder
[http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/chernobyl-fungus-
radiotrop...](http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/chernobyl-fungus-
radiotrophic-08122011/)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus>

~~~
mikegreco
“Since ionizing radiation is prevalent in outer space, astronauts might be
able to rely on fungi as an inexhaustible food source on long missions or for
colonizing other planets,”

It's an interesting thought that our future Buzz Aldrins and Neil Armstrongs
may be sustained by a diet of radioactive mushrooms. That sounds like a Marvel
origin story.

~~~
gus_massa
One important detail is that the funguses are not necessarily radioactive [x].
They absorb the gamma radiation, that it's similar to the X-rays. After a
radiography, x-ray or gamma-ray exposure the things don't become radioactive.
But too much radiation kills almost anything. This process is used to produce
irradiated food (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation>) that is safe
for eating (when the irradiation is done properly).

[x] The funguses inside Chernovil are surely radioactive because they also
absorb the water that is contaminated with radioactive elements. Don't eat
them :).

------
malandrew

      "Those studies found mammal diversity and abundance equal to 
      that of a protected nature reserve, with rare species 
      including bears, lynx, river otter, and badger as well as 
      introduced herds of European bison and Przewalski’s horses. 
      Bird diversity is even richer and includes 61 rare species.
      Whooper swans—never before reported in the region—now appear 
      regularly."
    

I love how the best conclusion you can get from this research is that even
nuclear fallout is better for the environment than the presence of humans in
the area.

------
a235
wow, the title reflects how epic is the development of journalism standards.

~~~
yareally
I would assume they were playing too much of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Series[1] or
used it as source when writing the article title. Even half suggesting that
animals would glow is link bait and just silly. I mean, it's not like animals
glowed after the atomic attacks on Japan or anywhere nuclear weapons have been
tested. Granted that there's differences in the radiation, but still it's kind
of specious reasoning.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.T.A.L.K.E.R.:_Shadow_of_Chern...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.T.A.L.K.E.R.:_Shadow_of_Chernobyl)

------
dos1
This is the money quote:

>The prevailing scientific view of the exclusion zone has become that it is an
unintentional wildlife sanctuary. This conclusion rests on the premise that
radiation is less harmful to wildlife populations than we are.

I don't consider myself an environmentally focused person, but the effects
humans have on the ecosystem cannot be overstated. I'm not saying the effects
are negative or positive, just that we as a species need to be very cognizant
of the changes we cause, and we need to think critically about what
ramifications those changes have.

~~~
stevoski
Species that have much lower lifespans than humans are less likely to develop
cancer in their lifetimes. These species particularly benefit from the lack of
humans around Chernobyl more than they suffer from the high radiation.

~~~
mikeash
Animals are a lot more tolerant of death and mayhem, too. For example, if
radiation caused e.g. a 10% incidence of horrible birth defects, a lot of
animal populations could survive that just fine, but humans would be horrified
at the very idea.

~~~
Shorel
Humans will survive just as well.

'Being horrified' is not a credible threat to survival.

In fact, in both cases the affected individuals of any species will die and
the rest will go on.

~~~
mikeash
Of course humans will survive, but they'll avoid the area if they can.

