Slashdot Mirror
Wildlife Defies Chernobyl Radiation
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"
We're fine until we have confirmed reports of colonies of large wild boars and wolves
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
I recall a certain knight... a black one... who expressed similar optimism in the face of suffering personal maladies.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
They have only whitnessed this over how many generations? I would imagine with every offspring, you have a handful more mutations. After a while, you have oatmeal.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I am sure there were horrible mutations at first, but mother nature has a strange ability to adapt rather well. I am sure their genetics are altered in strange ways, but I am sure they will live on.
He has found ample evidence of DNA mutations, but nothing that affected the animals' physiology or reproductive ability. "Nothing with two heads," he says.
It's as if the positive changes are being selected in favor of the negative changes.
... with a space elevator. Get it into space, then use a disposable cargo unit to send it towards the sun.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
the lead scientist was heard to say.
There are also footprints belonging to a giant, dinosaur-like creature.
Not all damage to DNA from radiation is harmful. Cells have repair systems and can quickly repair breaks in DNA, with no long-term cellular consequence. Alternatively, the repair may not return the DNA to its original form, but may retain its integrity. If cellular damage is not repaired, it may prevent the cell from surviving or reproducing, or it may result in a viable but modified cell. These two outcomes have different results, leading either to deterministic or stochastic effects [Court of Appeals, 1999, pp. 37, 38].
Source: http://www.yuccamountain.org/price003.htm
Leaking tanks of high-level bombmaking waste have made a huge area undevelopable. The animals are pleased as punch with this state of affairs.
It's not hard to imagine many of the conceptions about radiation exposure may have been a bit over estimated, simply because nobody has really been willing to undergo an experiment of that caliber. I would not believe the animals are enjoying their radiation poisoning however until I was able to ask them.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
"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."
Ummm... the animals are radioactive and their DNA has undergone considerable mutation. What exactly is contrary here to the common assumptions of radiological contamination? Sure matches my own assumptions.
Sure they can reproduce but I wouldn't exactly be jumping with glee over this "recovery". The damage merely has yet to express itself.
Though if any of the local turtles grow to human size and start dressing like ninjas, I'll take back everything I said.
A former Soviet Republic has developed Radioactive Bears?
Someone get Stephen Colbert on the phone right away! The world must be warned!
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
that human presence is more hazardous to wildlife than radiation.
Sig cannot be found.
Oh, wait.
Could radio active pollin spread and cause problems?
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
I am not that surprised really, that is what natural selection is about. The DNA coding for many genes also has quite a bit of redundancy built in, naturally with large radiation doses critical genes may be damaged, but given enough time favourable mutants will arise.
It reminds me of the large scale experiments done on plant breeding [1] where radioactive material was placed in the centre of a field of crops, and favourable mutants were selected. I love telling this story to anti-GE people, who probably eat plant products produced as a result of these experiments done predominantly in the 1970's. At least with GE only a single well studied change is being made.
[1] http://www.nias.affrc.go.jp/eng/gfs/index.html
This story was covered in this months (last months now? the next issue is due soon) National Geographic. Definately one of the better featured pieces of the last few months
FGD 135
Most rain forest is inhabited. The article makes the usual stupid urban-centric assumptions about where the people we care about live. Maybe someone should suggest the waste needs to be buried in parks in the author's neighborhood (not really).
I still think the Sun is the best pace to dispose of the longer half-life (>100 yrs as very very unsafe) stuff.
> The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of
> 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.
The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers
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 had some similar ideas, once upon a time.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Well, a lot of animals have life cycles under a year. Even bears don't often live past 20, right? And they become sexually mature and reproduce within a few years. The radiation wouldn't interrupt the life of short-lived animals.
So, not everyone living in an irradiated area will have their flesh falling off, but for us long-lifed humans, the life would be filled with more misery and an early ending. Maybe cancer at 20. And for normal human socities, "old farts" (those over 30) are really what drive the society.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
This is ENTIRELY hypothetical...
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.
:(){
Ah yes. Flamebait = I disagree.
I for one, disagree, with this simplistic argument. For example, when we use coal or fossil fuels, more damage is done, but it is distributed, and less visible (and easy to take pictures of the victims).
Nonetheless, there is no way in hell the above post is flamebait.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I took classes from a professor studying worms and spiders in the Chernobyl area, and he found remarkable genetic mutations (e.g., changes in the number and size of chromosomes, large sections of additional DNA, etc.) and behavioral changes (e.g., worms switching to from asexual to sexual reproduction).
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.
from a few weeks ago. They didn't breed those in Europe; they just caught a few Chernobyl ones. They would have got a bear too, but those things move amazingly fast on all eights.
There's potentially huge amounts of money to be made if the world 'switches' to nuclear electricity generation. There are strong vested interests in promoting nuclear technology as the successor to coal and oil.
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.
So why are we surprised that any of this is happening?
Unfortunately her site has been shown to be fake. Yes, she took the pictures, but it was on the official, guided tours that are done in the area. (Note that no pictures inside the secure area include her motorcycle, and that there is clearly at least one other person along to take some of the photos.)
So enjoy the photos as undoctored, but take the entire story line with a large grain of salt.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
This isn't terribly suprising as the people exposed to this radiation and their offspring probably procreated with people who were not exposed. This would mean the introduced changes would be diluted every generation. I would not go and jump to the conclusion that our DNA have some undiscovered repairing abilities or some other "x-men" type ability...
"Experiments have shown the DNA strands have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction"
...
That to me sounds as an opportunity for an evolution leap. Most mutations will be bad and disappear eventually, but there is this slight chance that few others will be beneficial for the species and eventually dominate. I wouldn't be surprised if few hundrend years from now we end up with "Bear Chernobilus" that hibernates only half the time and has double the mating seasons
That's the sound of the joke going over your head :)
It is known (although ignored in strict radiation regulations) that the same dose received in short time is much more harmful than the dose received during longer times. It is probably because the cells have repair mechanism that can cope with small damage over long time while cannot efectively repair large damage in short time. There are even indications that small doses can be beneficial by "training" the repair mechanism.
Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!
Dr. Ian Malcolm: I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way.
(Can anyone guess the Movie or Book title?)
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
That's not a problem inherent in nuclear reactors, or a problem for the people who design them.
When scientists and engineers create a cost-effective and safe way to do something, it's not their fault if politicking and societal faults get in the way of its implementation.
> But say we take, I dunno, the whole planet...and just douse it in some radiation.
>
> Transiently accelerate evolution, yanno?
If by "transiently accelerate evolution" you mean "give lots of people cancer", then that'd probably work quite well. If you're looking for something more beneficial to humanity than millions of people dying in agony, well, I think you'd best keep looking.
Don't think that because animals can survive in the region it's somehow beneficial to them. They'd still survive and populate the region if you took a machete and hacked pieces off of each animal, but they wouldn't be "improved" by the process. "Crippled but alive" is an improvement over dead, but it's a far cry from "whole and healthy".
Don't mistake "not dead" for "new and improved".
Yeah, except leave out the "could" part.
Lots of people refused to leave the Black Zone, and the government didn't make them. Lots of the ones left behind died of cancer or thyroid problems. But lots didn't. They farm land that's so radioactive the crops have problems, but some of them are still alive. People have children in the black zone, and only 15-20% of them DON"T have serious health problems.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
It has been postulated that life wouldn't exist the closer one gets to the center of the galaxy because of the ambient radiation, and, in fact, a system with life would need to be positioned the same as our solar system is to avoid the radiation. But if life on Earth can adapt to high radiation so quickly, how much that does that improve the chances of life near the rim of the galaxy where the ambient radiation is higher but not so incredibly high?
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Gather around. Come one, come all. Time for the great DigiShaman to make a prediction... Ahem
Let see now. According to the extreme environmentalists, it's human activities that are causing the greatest harm to the planet. We also know that while radiation is bad for humans, it's not bad for natural life. Ergo, radioactive material is *good* for the planet.
Soon, I expect environmentalists (the extreme wacko kind, not all mind you) to endorse nuclear technology. Not just any technology, but the kind designed with shoddy engineering. You see, they need a "Trojan Horse" inside human civilization to lower our population count. Nuclear disasters are the way to accomplish this goal.
Life is not for the lazy.
Exactly. The Cernobyl incident happend because in Soviet Russia nuclear powerplants were build in normal, usual buildings (like a shoe factory, or whatever). When the fire came, the roof of the building just blew up and all the radiation got into the air. In a Western nuclear facilities, the reactor is held in a building made of thick walls and covered by a dome, kept at a pressure below the atmosferic pressure, to avoid any potential radioactive air leak putside the facility. When such incidents occurs (and it did), they simply evacuate and seal off the building. Now one complains about Three Mile Island incident nowadays. Why? Because the damn reactor buidling was built with security issues in mind, not like an ordinary Soviet building. And the Soviets tried to keep the whole thing a secret, until some scientist from Sweeden (!!) (if I'm not mistaken) found out that their air is polluted more that usual. The problem is that now people think that nuclear energy is a dirty one. It's not like that, the Greenpeace guys are assholes, the nuclear power is the cleanest possbile nowadays. It is much more clean to burn uranium that coal, but who cares?...
This is radio Jerevan. Ask us what you want, we will answer what we want.
We have been asked: What is the Soviet union's attitude towards wildlife preservation
Answer: We take it very seriously. Take the Chernobyl natural reserve for example - the west has nothing like it!
I'd prefer them to glow in the dark. Everyone knows that mutant pirhana prefer to attack under the cover of darkness!
To give a reliable overview, you'd have to track ALL the animals there and observe the population. Here is what you would find:
Some die instantly at the blast.
Some die within the next hours.
Some die within the next days/weeks/months.
Fertility goes DOWN, but those THAT have offspring will have a higher chance to raise them to maturity (less competition).
Again, of those some will die due to mutation.
Some will have a shorter life expectance. As long as they mature and can raise at least one generation of offspring, it's not so important.
Also keep in mind that quite a few animals CAN only raise one generation of offspring, they die after giving birth/laying eggs.
Bottom line, of course animals will survive, as a group. Humans would too, the body count would be incredibly high and the chance that YOU, as an individual, survive, is incredibly small. But as a species, you can fairly reliably survive a nuking.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Could it be? Could there be natural selection at work? Could evolution actually be right? God's gonna be very angry when he hears about this!
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.