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"

23 of 612 comments (clear)

  1. no worries by caffeinemessiah · · Score: 5, Funny
    confirmed reports of large colonies of wild boars and wolves...have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction.

    We're fine until we have confirmed reports of colonies of large wild boars and wolves

    --
    An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
    1. Re:no worries by cazbar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Buttercup: Westley, what about the R.O.U.S.'s?
      Westley: Rodents Of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist.

  2. Monty Pythons Meets News Journalist by physicsphairy · · Score: 5, Funny
    "radioactive but otherwise healthy"

    I recall a certain knight... a black one... who expressed similar optimism in the face of suffering personal maladies.

    1. Re:Monty Pythons Meets News Journalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      'Tis but an extra arm!

  3. But ... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:But ... by dsci · · Score: 5, Informative

      I remember reading about thirteen years ago something similar about the Hiroshima radiation results on humans. The folks that were alive when irradiated had all sorts of the expected problems, and their kids too but to a lesser extent. The grandkids (and subsequent offspring) were showing no signs of the exposure.

      --
      Computational Chemistry products and services.
    2. Re:But ... by modecx · · Score: 5, Funny

      The grandkids (and subsequent offspring) were showing no signs of the exposure.

      Just to be clear, we are talking about the same Japan, right?

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    3. Re:But ... by Vreejack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. Every generation tends to get rid of bad mutations. It's called natural selection. While a few alarming but non-fatal mutations will occasionally be expressed, most mutations will simply result in reduced fertility due to terminated abnormal pregnancy. But wild animals are generally fecund enough to make up for the losses.

      Consider that the average human conception has about three dangerous mutations even without Chernobyl. Why aren't we oatmeal? Because a goodly percentage of conceptions never make it past the blastocyst stage due to excessive nasty chromosomal damage, while we lucky survivors had fewer.

      --
      "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
    4. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know a girl ...

      You're really stretching your credibility here, pal.

    5. Re:But ... by natmakarvitch · · Score: 5, Informative
      ... No problems... for the survivors, and those able to have childs.

      Moreover let's scrutinize all this Chernobyl 'material' because disinformation rulz.

      Sept. 2005: the Chernobyl Forum (IAEA, in fact), during a press conference, publishes an abstract of its draft report stating that 4000 people have and will die. But the name of the authors abstract and report was not known, it did not state that those 4000 people are from a small subset of the human beings concerned, the report did not contain the key sentence of the abstract, the report was presented as an UN report albeit it was not (it is published by agencies, and not published by UN), it was only a draft...

      The abstract (''4,000 people will die from the effects of the 1986 accident at Chernobyl'') was largely propagated (see for example this BBC's account). It was not definitive nor adopted by the UN, albeit presented as such.

      April 2006; the very same Chernobyl Forum discreetly publishes the definitive version of the report, where this 4000 figure was replaced (see page 106) by ''9000'', which was stated only for a subset of the Soviet population and for solid cancers (numerous other illnesses are radiation-induced). It was then accepted by the UN. See http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060417/full/440982 a.html, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4922508.stm

      Therefore those guys induced the whole media into spreading the ''Chernobyl: 4000 people will die globally'' during 7 months, albeit their ''best'' minimization is ''9000 people will die from from solids cancers amongst the approx 7 million who were in the vicinity''

      Lies, damn lies... and the Atomic Guys

  4. Is there a name for this? by wombatmobile · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Is there a name for this? by brian0918 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "It's as if the positive changes are being selected in favor of the negative changes."

      It's simple really... the creatures that survived were more intelligently designed than those that died.

  5. That doesn't sound so good by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  6. Contrary to Common Assumptions? by MooseByte · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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.

  7. long-term effect by gansch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Remember that glowing pig story... by Winlin · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  9. A bunch of thoughts by subreality · · Score: 5, Insightful
    • Sure enough, life adapts when it has to.
    • The current radiation levels are probably a lot lower than the levels when the area was freshly sprayed with molten core and irradiated particles.
    • The radiation isn't *that* bad. We'd consider it wildly unacceptable if 1 in 10,000 people died over the course of 5 years. Animals won't notice.
    • Getting rid of humans is *great* for wildlife.

    So why are we surprised that any of this is happening?
  10. Whooosh! by jamesh · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's the sound of the joke going over your head :)

    1. Re:Whooosh! by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Funny

      Which head?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  11. While we're doing movie quotes by roseblood · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  12. Re:No suprise by Wolfbaine · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not authorative but apparently Elena's story is a hoax. According to the linked posting she was 30, not 26 at the time of writing and cannot ride a motorbike. According to the thread she is actually a tourguide with Chernobylinterinform. Sorry for ruining the fantasy.

  13. Re:Disposal of nuclear waste could be trivial by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But, in any case, dumping all our radioactive waste in the sun would be a horribly short sighted squandering of a potentially precious resource for the future. Heavy metals don't exactly grow on trees you know.

    An excellent point, one that I think can't be said enough. While we're burying all this nuclear waste, or tossing it down into the Marianas Trench, or whatever, I think it's important to consider that while the storage method should be able to last as long as the longest-lived dangerous isotopes in the waste (in case we just want to leave it there) it should also have as a design criteria the ability for us to recover it.

    I could easily envision a time in the future, a lot sooner than 10,000 years or even a few hundred, when we might want to get at some of that "waste" in order to reprocess it in ways that are not economically viable, or perhaps technologically feasible, right now.

    This is hugely the case with the type of nuclear energy we use in the United States, where the majority of the fuel rods are comprised of U-238 and only a small percentage of it is U-235, the latter is the fissionable fuel, the former isn't (although it can be bred into Plutonium) and currently we really just use it as a sort of contaminant in order to make weaponization of the fuel difficult. A change in attitudes regarding breeder reactors would instantly make U-238, particularly the stuff that comes out of reactors (which has greater-than-trace amounts of plutonium in it already) a hot commodity. (No pun intended.)

    Frankly given our energy requirements, I think the need to reprocess nuclear fuel waste may occur sooner rather than later, perhaps within a few centuries or even decades, depending on technological developments of other energy sources and the geopolitics of Uranium mining, and thus the solutions for waste storage that are recoverable while also being secure are the best ones.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  14. Re:No suprise by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    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 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.