Wildlife Returning To Chernobyl

The wilderness is encroaching over abandoned towns in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. One of the elderly residents who refused to evacuate the contaminated area says packs of wolves have eaten two of her dogs, and wild boar trample through her cornfield. Scientist are divided as to whether or not the animals are flourishing in the highly radioactive environment: "Robert J. Baker of Texas Tech University says the mice and other rodents he has studied at Chernobyl since the early 1990s have shown remarkable tolerance for elevated radiation levels. But Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina, a biologist who studies barn swallows at Chernobyl, says that while wild animals have settled in the area, they have struggled to build new populations."

Comments

This is fantastic

[ReidMaynard]

Aren't a lot of Iraqis looking for a new home?

Re:This is fantastic

[xENoLocO]

or maybe we can use it for a cemetary for our soldiers...

Any other pro-bush commentary?

(I'll get modded down for this, no doubt, but you can't deny the fact that we have soldiers dying in iraq)

Re:This is fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had mod points I would mod you up.

today the death toll of us troops is up to 3500. http://icasualties.org/oif/BY_DOD.aspx its amazing the amount of IED deaths that people (not just us troops) are taking. more then a few IED's go off every day on us troops but the design of the humvee's save there lives.

Bush needs to be impeached!

Re:This is fantastic

[tsa]

Why the hell is this funny? This is one of the most arrogant and self-centered comments I've ever come across on /.

Re:This is fantastic

[MightyYar]

So it took how many years to get the death toll up to 1 month's worth of auto accidents in the US? You're going to have to wow me with a different statistic. Based on death toll, we need to impeach Eisenhower and his damnable highway system.

Re:This is fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, the political correctness.. give me a break!

Humour usually is provoking in order to be funny.

Re:This is fantastic

[Rei]

Yeah!
Because everyone knows that we have 300 million soldiers in Iraq.
Because everyone knows that every driver has close medevac air support and the best emergency care on the planet.
Because everyone knows that those who don't die in a car accident have high odds of amputations, severe head trauma, and other lifelong adverse effects.
Because everyone knows that nobody has died in Iraq except for the soldiers -- no contractors, Iraqi troops, etc.
Because everyone knows that soldiers who die after coming home don't count.

Re:This is fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

How about relocating some zio-facist kibutzim?
Really, your statement is so 'FUNNY'!

Re:This is fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the fact the troops died for an illegal war based on lies and greed? http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/impeachbush.html

Re:This is fantastic

[MightyYar]

Wow, now you're saying that being a soldier is riskier than being a US civilian? Man, stop it, you are really blowing my mind here. Someone had better mod you insiteful, uh, insightful.

Re:This is fantastic

[MightyYar]

See now, isn't that better than unimpressive statistics? A bit wing-nutty, but still better than, "OMG, 3500 troops died!"

Re:This is fantastic

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Exactly. That, and the fact that the deads of Iraqis is WAY higher.
And also we should count how many people die in Iraq every year because of hunger, diseases, lack of medical care, lack of vaccines, etc. And if we take into account the fact that this is because the U.S.A has been living at the expenses of 3rd world countries for 2 hundred years, from slavery to gun trading, from controlled dictatorships to the FMI, the US got rich at the expenses of the rest of the world. And each dollar those dead soldiers and the rest of the USA population spent over the years, was one less dollar in Iraq, and one more kid dying of causes that could be prevented. So those soldiers were killing people in Iraq before they went to war. And so did the rest of the population. For 2 hundred years. They are also in a big part responsible for the lack of funding for education, what eventually leads to an uneducated, easily controlled population. And that, and the help of the USA Government, lead eventually to Saddam Hussein.

How many deaths could we prevent in Iraq with the money spent just in the funeral of a soldier of the USA?
Consider THIS: A typical funeral in the USA costs u$s 6000. An Iraqi father earns around u$s 150 a month. So an Iraqi family could live for MORE THAN 3 YEARS with just the cost of burying one soldier.

The killing didn't start with the war.

Re:This is fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Provication can be funny. In the case of the OP, it wasn't.

Re:This is fantastic

[djh101010]

How about the fact the troops died for an illegal war based on lies and greed? You mean like these lies:

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Lots more examples to be found, google string "snopes WMD". So... Yup, sure seemed to be a whole lot of, er, "lying" going on. Did you have a point?

The real question is, why do these people, and those who support them, have an apparently crippling case of memory loss? You know, the whole thing where they're pretending it was a one-person decision to go to war?

Re:This is fantastic

[MightyYar]

Instead of just insulting everyone in the Western world, how about you offer some solutions?

China and India seem to be finding wealth without draining it from the rest of the world... could that be because wealth is created all the time, and doesn't just come from a big finite pool? Standards of living have gone up almost everywhere over the last half-century - this wouldn't be possible in a finite pool of wealth.

Re:This is fantastic

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Everyone in the western world? I was talking very specifically about the U.S.A, not the whole western world.

And total wealth is not growing because:

1) Many of the resources that the human being uses are non-renewable.
2) The population is growing.

Re:This is fantastic

[ChrisMaple]

Most of the interstates are pretty well designed and do not encourage accidents. Twisty state and local roads without center dividers encourage accidents. Better roads, seat belts and other safety devices, legal and public pessure against drunk drivers, have resulted in a decline in traffic deaths over the last 50 years while the number of miles driven has more than doubled.

Re:This is fantastic

[MightyYar]

SOOOO... the US was built on the backs of the rest of the world, but not Western Europe?

Seriously, wtf? A phrase you might have heard: "The Sun Never Set on the British Empire". Beyond that, you have French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, and others spoken all over the world. But I'm sure that these speakers voluntarily gave up their native languages.

True, there are non-renewable resources being depleted.

By the way, have you looked at who is having babies? (Hint: it's not people in the US.) Or would you like us imperialist pigs to start neutering poor folks in nations with high birth rates?

Re:This is fantastic

[MightyYar]

Which is great, but my point stands that people get all wound up about 3500 deaths over 4 years when 50x that number have died on the highways in the same period. One simple act would cut that number to almost nothing - setting the speed limit to 10 MPH. Hell, even 35MPH would probably do it. Instead we raise speed limits...

Oh, we're willing to live with the death in order to go fast, are we? So is is so far out to be willing to accept 3500 deaths in order to prevail in Iraq?

Re:This is fantastic

[Rei]

I love your selective quoting (although that's usually what you get by grabbing a random list off the internet). Let's take pick a random one, shall we?

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country"

OMG! Al Gore was trying to encourage us to go to war! The parent was so wrong! ... Except that they weren't:

Full context:

"Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist group. However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan - with no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda than these widely dispersed supplies of weapons of mass destruction might well come into the hands of terrorist groups.

If we end the war in Iraq, the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily be worse off than we are today. When Secretary Rumsfield was asked recently about what our responsibility for restabilizing Iraq would be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, "that's for the Iraqis to come together and decide."

During one of the campaign debates in 2000 when then Governor Bush was asked if America should engage in any sort of "nation building" in the aftermath of a war in which we have involved our troops, he stated gave the purist expression of what is now a Bush doctrine: "I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. We're going to have a kind of nation building corps in America? Absolutely not."

The events of the last 85 years provide ample evidence that our approach to winning the peace that follows war is almost as important as winning the war itself. The absence of enlightened nation building after World War I led directly to the conditions which made Germany vulnerable to fascism and the rise to Adolph Hitler and made all of Europe vulnerable to his evil designs. By contrast the enlightened vision embodied in the Marshall plan, NATO, and the other nation building efforts in the aftermath of World War II led directly to the conditions that fostered prosperity and peace for most the years since this city gave birth to the United Nations.

Two decades ago, when the Soviet Union claimed the right to launch a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan, we properly encouraged and then supported the resistance movement which, a decade later, succeeded in defeating the Soviet Army's efforts. Unfortunately, when the Russians left, we abandoned the Afghans and the lack of any coherent nation building program led directly to the conditions which fostered Al Qaeda terrorist bases and Osama Bin Laden's plotting against the World Trade Center. Incredibly, after defeating the Taliban rather easily, and despite pledges from President Bush that we would never again abandon Afghanistan we have done precisely that. And now the Taliban and Al Qaeda are quickly moving back to take up residence there again. A mere two years after we abandoned Afghanistan the first time, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Following a brilliant military campaign, the U.S. abandoned the effort to destroy Saddam's military prematurely and allowed him to remain in power.

What is a potentially even more serious consequence of this push to begin a new war as quickly as possible is the damage it can do not just to America's prospects to winning the war against terrorism but to America's prospects for continuing th

Re:This is fantastic

[utopianfiat]

I'd be content with us not being so damn schizoid over what we want out of the third world. We can't just walk in, depose the government, and leave. We might as well annex any country we invade. We need to either be neutral and free or imperialist and rule with an iron fist. We can't have ourselves going halfway through.
Essentially, we should probably wipe those who oppose Us off the face of the earth and regulate the beliefs to become more western and Christianized.

for idiots: it's meant to point out the absurdity in trying to "finish the job"

Re:This is fantastic

[Mister Whirly]

How many US soldiers WILL have to die to wow you??

Re:This is fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

"how about you offer some solutions?"

Ok. Sign yourself up and go over to Iraq and fight. You seem pretty gung-ho about it! Better yet, every person that is pro-war -- put your money where your mouth is and enlist now!

Re:This is fantastic

[djh101010]

I love your selective quoting (although that's usually what you get by grabbing a random list off the internet). Let's take pick a random one, shall we?
Sure, if by "random" you mean "the easiest one to find some vague explaination for which doesn't acknowledge fully that he had the same intel Bush did", sure, go ahead.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country"

OMG! Al Gore was trying to encourage us to go to war! The parent was so wrong! ... Except that they weren't:
Yes, I've seen the context. The fact remains, Gore in this statement is saying that, well, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country". There's no way that any amount of weasel-words can change the meaning of that statement. And yes, thanks for giving more of the quote, it shows even further that you're missing the point:

"We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist group."
Exactly. To paraphrase Bush at the time, 'The best available intel shows that SH has the stuff, and he and AQ have us as a common enemy. It would be bad if the two of them would decide to put aside their (relatively minor) differences and share resources to attack us.' Yes, that's a paraphrase, not a quote. Gore's approach would have been to wait until they did team up, Bush's approach involved taking the battle there to prevent that. I prefer the latter approach, personally.

If we end the war in Iraq, the way we ended the war in Afghanistan,
When did the war in Afghanistan end? Someone alert the media and military, I'm sure they'll be glad to know it.

Furthermore... so freaking what? Al Gore didn't have the current intelligence on Iraq. Even Hillary Clinton, Mrs. Iraq War, one of the few Dems who *did* have access to it (at least, access to the intelligence that had passed Tenet and Cheney's filters), didn't even read it before she voted.


And, you use this to DEFEND her? Amazing. I don't think "I vote on things I don't understand" is a winning strategy for anyone.

If you need cites for any of these, I'll gladly get them for you.

I really don't see any point in that. Your response seems to be, basically, that even though these quotes are true, (unless they're wrong in which case Snopes would love to know about it; they're usually pretty careful about things), the people quoted in them didn't actually mean what they were saying. So what was the case, were they just merely uninformed, or were they lying, or were they saying one thing while meaning something else? Because I can't see any other reason someone would say "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" unless they mean "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country". All of those words have specific meanings, individually and in that grouping. Pretending that when they said "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" they meant something other than "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" is the hight of delusion.

Wouldn't it be easier to just admit that the Democrats came to the same conclusion as the Republicans based on the best available information, and now want to pretend they had nothing to do with said decision for reasons of political gain? Because it has the added benefit of being the truth.

Re:This is fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

"in order to prevail in Iraq?"

thank you. I really needed a good laugh today.

Re:This is fantastic

[MightyYar]

Perhaps we have different definitions of "prevail"... what is so impossible that it is funny? Would killing everyone in the country be prevailing? Would installing a new dictator and a strong army be prevailing? Would getting the hell out only to go back in if extremists take over be prevailing? What is your definition?

Re:This is fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the fact[...] Might want to brush up on the difference between "fact" and "opinion" there, Einstein.

Re:This is fantastic

[Rei]

And, you use this to DEFEND her? Amazing. I don't think "I vote on things I don't understand" is a winning strategy for anyone.

Strangely, you seem to think that because a person supports some Democrats, they must inherently support all Democrats. I'm not defending her. I'm attacking her. You clearly didn't catch that. Hillary is one of the most pro-war Democrats currently in congress, and certainly the most pro-war Democrat who is prominant on the national stage (with the possible exception of Joe, who is a registered Democrat but is in congress as an Independent).

Re:This is fantastic

[djh101010]

And, you use this to DEFEND her? Amazing. I don't think "I vote on things I don't understand" is a winning strategy for anyone.

Strangely, you seem to think that because a person supports some Democrats, they must inherently support all Democrats. I'm not defending her. I'm attacking her. You clearly didn't catch that. Hillary is one of the most pro-war Democrats currently in congress, and certainly the most pro-war Democrat who is prominant on the national stage (with the possible exception of Joe, who is a registered Democrat but is in congress as an Independent).
Wow, talk about selective quoting. Tell me, why did you pick that one Gore quote instead of, for instance, this one: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

Tell me, was _this_ out of context too? Because I don't care _what_ context you wrap around that, that statement is astonishingly clear in meaning.

It's interesting that the only thing you choose to answer from my post is that little snippet above. It's also interesting that Lieberman, so typical of Democrats, is playing both sides of the fence. He's an independent so he can get around the fact that he lost the primary, but he's a Democrat so the Democrats can hold the majority. It's another example, just like all the quotes then vs. actions now, of Democrats changing their reality to reflect whatever they think they can get away with.

Re:This is fantastic

[MightyYar]

So how is my military record relevant to a discussion about what is best for the US and Iraq?

Re:This is fantastic

[sdsichero]

Out of context or not, Gore STRONGLY opposed going into Iraq. I don't understand the point.

Re:This is fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldnt say its wing nutty. I'm all for war if the cause is right. but Iraq was a lie and we all know it was. torture should NEVER be used when dealing with terroists. not just for ethics but for intel reasons, if you dominate a person they will probably tell you anything to get it to stop, but if you befriend them you can get a bit more info out of them.

Re:This is fantastic

[BungaDunga]

Except they do come from a finite pool: The planet itself (discounting sunlight of course). Granted, wind is obviously limitless but more or less everything else isn't, at least at the rate we are depleting it. Maybe they're finding wealth in natural resources that are only being tapped recently, due to their later industrialization?

Re:This is fantastic

[Old Benjamin]

I'm going to say that about as many or more (American) civilians have died from terrorist attacks, and that those 3500 men saved many more than 3500. Also, I call your attention to the death rates in the second world war, or the first, or the civil war, or from Hussein to his civilians, or Osama. You say that 3500 people have died. I say that thousands more have been saved.

Re:This is fantastic

[rohan972]

As I understand it, his point is not whether or not Gore supported the war, it's that Gore (and other Democrats) agreed that Iraq had WMD, the general context being the post saying the war was over lies.

To many people, this shows Democrats accusations "Bush lied about WMD" to be hypocritical, as many of them agreed about the WMD even if they disagreed about the correct response.

Re:This is fantastic

[djh101010]

Out of context or not, Gore STRONGLY opposed going into Iraq. I don't understand the point. The point is, he CLAIMS to be against having gone to war, yet his statements as quoted show he was playing both sides of the fence. It's obvious to me that he was sitting back to see which side comes out as the more popular. Unfortunately public record shows what he was saying, and that kind of language is hardly "strongly opposed" no matter how you look at it.

Have you gone to snopes.com and read the WMD quotes page? Please do, you might be surprised.

Re:This is fantastic

[MightyYar]

I don't know if it was a lie - I think it was the result of an incompetent man who surrounded himself with a bunch of "yes" men. Contrary voices were either ignored or suppressed lower down the chain. People all wondered what having an MBA President would be like, and now we know - he ran the country just like any of these poorly-run companies we have. I think Bush really did think that Iraq posed a more-or-less immediate threat to the US.

That said, I also think that he and the Neo-Cons got carried away with the idea that they could spread some kind of seed of democracy throughout the Middle East. Sure, like Iran and Syria would just sit there and let outsiders take over their neighborhood.

I agree on torture - it's a bad idea unless you have very specific information that you want that is instantly verifiable, like the password to an encrypted laptop. I can't think of many other uses for it, and it's certainly not good for the reputation of our country.

Re:This is fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are comparing numbers of deaths in a civilian population of 100s of millions to a military population of 100s of thousands?

Re:This is fantastic

[MightyYar]

Wealth, at least until now, is not simply about parsing out limited natural resources. It is also about specializing and becoming more productive and efficient. We can feed thousands of people with one farmer, whereas in Africa there is hardly any surplus at all, and so nearly everyone is a farmer. Making a cheap foot-operated pump can increase the productivity of a farmer so that he now has some surplus, which he can sell or trade. Then you have a snowball effect - the farmers can invest in even better farm equipment - maybe even purchase more farmland and make an even greater surplus. This both creates demand for other goods and services and frees up former farmers to go and do something else in the economy. Thus, wealth gets built with only a moderate uptick in resource usage.

Obviously, I made up the above scenario, but that is essentially what happened in Asia over the last 50 years - though it was better crops instead of pumps that initiated the uptick in farm productivity.

Moving forward, I don't know if that scenario will still work... it is widely believed that it will be impossible for everyone in China to attain Western standards of living... there aren't enough trees, food, or oil. Indeed it will be interesting - but trees, food, and oil are not what has limited the third world to date. Some of the poorest countries in Africa are some of the richest in terms of natural resources.

Re:This is fantastic

[MightyYar]

No, that would be absurd - everyone knows that it is more dangerous to be a soldier in Iraq then a driver on a highway. My point is that 3500 AMERICANS died on roads last month. In Iraq 3500 AMERICANS died over the course of more than 4 years. I'm not comparing soldiers to drivers, but Americans to Americans. If you are making policy based on the number of dead Americans, then Iraq would be a silly place to start.

The truth is that people who are opposed to the war for other reasons invoke the body count for propaganda value and I resent that.

Re:This is fantastic

[Rei]

Wow, talk about selective quoting. Tell me, why did you pick that one Gore quote instead of, for instance, this one: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

I picked a random one, like I said. Nothing more. I didn't want to have to do them all. Want the context on this quote?

---
To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another.
We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.
I dont think that we should allow anything to diminish our focus on avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling the network of terrorists who we know to be responsible for it. The fact that we dont know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify.
Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment right now is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.
Moreover, he is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq and for that matter any other nation in the region, regardless of subsequent developments or circumstances. The timing of this sudden burst of urgency to take up this cause as Americas new top priority, displacing the war against Osama Bin Laden, was explained by the White House Chief of Staff in his now well known statement that from an advertising point of view, you dont launch a new product line until after labor day.

Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraqs search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint.

We also need to look at the relationship between our nati

Re:This is fantastic

[Rei]

And I don't get how quotes from a few Democrats, half of them hawks, half of them not even having access to the intelligence or having access to it but not reading it, a number of the quotes back from not long after Saddam actually *was* hiding stuff, and the intelligence itself having first been routed through Cheney's "Office of Special Plans" (which was created specifically because he didn't like what the intelligencewas saying), has to do with anything about Democrats as a whole.

Re:This is fantastic

[Rei]

Um, read entire Gore speech. He was *NOT* playing both sides of the fence. He was arguing, absolutely and clearly, that going to war would be a stupid thing to do.

Re:This is fantastic

[djh101010]

Um, read entire Gore speech. He was *NOT* playing both sides of the fence. He was arguing, absolutely and clearly, that going to war would be a stupid thing to do.
Your original statement was that the war was based on lies and greed. I showed that the same sorts of statements were being made on both sides of the aisle, and asked why when Bush says "Saddam has WMD" it's a lie, but when Gore and friends say "Saddam has WMD" somehow it's not a lie. They were either all lying, or they were all not lying. Even if you don't think the WMDs were moved somewhere else (cough...Syria...cough...), the worst that they can all be is _wrong_, unless they were stating an incorrect thing and they knew it.

So let's try that again. Was Gore wrong, or lying? Was Kerry wrong, or lying? Was Berger wrong, or lying? Was Bush wrong, or lying? And, maybe you can explain how data can be filtered and precooked by Cheney and the CIA, when so many of those quotes are from BEFORE Cheney got into office. Just to see if you can, would you mind actually addressing my points this time, instead of snipping 90% of my post, and responding to only the minor subpoint you think you have a chance with? Thanks awfully.

Face it. Your political bias is blinding you to the fact that both sides of the aisle had folks who agreed that Saddam had WMDs and the only way to stop him being a threat to us was to go to war. Do you need the link to the vote for the authorization to go to war? I can post it, or you could google it. Funny how your type keeps ignoring facts for political gain.

Re:This is fantastic

[Rei]

Your original statement was that the war was based on lies and greed.

What on Earth original statement are you referring to?
If you can't even keep track of who says what, why should I bother to argue with you?

Re:This is fantastic

[rs79]

"How many US soldiers WILL have to die to wow you?"

I was pretty wowed when I realized more American citizens have died in Iraq than in 911.

Iy also answers the question I posed to myself "would the Bush administration really cause the death of 3000 of its own citizens?"

Wild animals?

[drgonzo59]

wild animals have settled in the area, they have struggled to build new populations

It's hard to attract females when you have 2 beaks, 3 hooves and only 1 eye.

Re:Wild animals?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is /. breasts and a skirt will do.

Re:Wild animals?

[Trigun]

And for the women of slashdot, those attributes listed in the GP would be a step up.

Re:Wild animals?

[Mockylock]

2 tits, a hole and heartbeat will suffice.

Irregular heartbeat and small tits optional.

Re:Wild animals?

[Alter_3d]

Look! a Three-Legged Monkey!!

Re:Wild animals?

[xENoLocO]

Yes, but most here probably prefer something more elvish... but alast, they'll take an orc or dwarf if they have to.

Re:Wild animals?

[corifornia]

Interesting, the fat guy in the cubicle next to me meets that description...

Re:Wild animals?

[Wolvie MkM]

Pulse optional?

Re:Wild animals?

[BosstonesOwn]

Dude that's not a third leg , notice all the female monkeys running from him ? The radiation has obviously made him very well endowed , but not liked. Go figure ! Guess sizes does matter and it can be too big.

Re:Wild animals?

[Anonymous Coward]

>And for the women of slashdot, those attributes listed in the GP would be a step up.
OMG! The idea of a swimsuit calendar "The Women of Slashdot" has just created a singularity of desire and confusion in my mind!

Re:Wild animals?

[Trigun]

I would have your head checked. If you're lucky, it's just a bunch of dudes who pretend to be women on slashdot. If you're not lucky, one word: EYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

Re:Wild animals?

[ultranova]

2 tits, a hole and heartbeat will suffice.

Seeing how I've been composing a DnD book about undead sexuality (yes, really), I'd say that your standards are needlessly high :).

Re:Wild animals?

[russotto]

Seeing how I've been composing a DnD book about undead sexuality

Tsukiko, is that you????

Re:Wild animals?

[Anonymous Coward]

wild animals have settled in the area, they have struggled to build new populations But it has created a sportsman's paradise. I just shot me a two-headed reindeer there last winter. Poor bastard dragged that first head I shot for almost a mile. At least it made it easy to track.

I heard they had eight legged spider-bears too.

Re:Wild animals?

[rbanffy]

I find it extremely funny to think that the old lady's dogs were eaten by radioactive wolves...

Not to speak of how many radioactive spiders are there.

Re:Wild animals?

[morcego]

Actually, I can see Thinkgeek making a lot of money on that idea.
Lets face it, even thou the general image of "lonely geek" is just an stereotype, the "porn loving" image isn't. Also, there are enough reader here with too much money (to spend).

Re:Wild animals?

[ckaminski]

365 days of goatse.cx

Re:Wild animals?

[comrade_zooloo]

True.. but I do have a great personality.

Re:Wild animals?

[Follier]

"OMG! The idea of a swimsuit calendar "The Women of Slashdot" has just created a singularity of desire and confusion in my mind!"

Assuming we use every girl who's ever posted, what are we going to put for April through December??

Ob

[A.Chwunbee]

I for on am welcomming our're new three-headed frog overloads!

Re:Ob

[Anonymous Coward]

don't you mean overtoads?

Re:Ob

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean hypnotoad?

Re:Ob

[Anonymous Coward]

I for on am welcomming our're new three-headed frog overloads!

In Soviet Russia, three-headed frog overlords welcome you!

Re:Ob

[legallyillegal]

Don't you mean wait whatcomply

Re:Ob

[Mercano]

All glory to the hypnotoad.

Re:Ob

[MS-06FZ]

See, it's comments like these that show the kind of ignorance there is out there of the real effects of this kind of radiation.

The most common effects of radioactive contamination are three-eyed fish: though radioactive spiders are also a common concern.

Re:Ob

[dreamchaser]

I've been trying to irradiate spiders and let them bite me for years now. All I get is an itchy welt each time. I'm going to sue Marvel for false advertising, damn it!

Re:Ob

[slashbob22]

*clap* ---- *clap* ---- *clap*

Re:Ob

[Nafai7]

linky

Case in point

[packetmon]

Packs of wolves have eaten two of her dogs, the 73-year-old says, and wild boar trample through her cornfield. And she says fox, rabbits and snakes infest the meadows near her tumbledown cottage. ... Then we have... Others say animals may be filtering into the zone, but they appear to suffer malformations and other ills.. Inference: She saw what she thought was a pack of wolves when in fact it was a three headed wolf.

Re:Case in point

[Mockylock]

She failed to mention that they had no hair, were 10 feet tall and their balls dragged 5 feet behind them.
Not only that, but the wolves ate her garage too.

Re:Case in point

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course they ate her garage. How else would they have gotten to her dogs?

Re:Case in point

[Mockylock]

Using their x-ray laser vision to cut a hole in the wall... DUH.

Re:Case in point

[TheBeowulf]

Oh, you mean Fluffy?

--
Beats me how you ever even know about Fluffy! - Hagrid

Re:Case in point

[megaditto]

Flyffy the gerbil?

Re:Case in point

[A_Non_Moose]

Packs of wolves have eaten two of her dogs, the 73-year-old says, and wild boar trample through her cornfield. And she says fox, rabbits and snakes infest the meadows near her tumbledown cottage. ... Then we have... Others say animals may be filtering into the zone, but they appear to suffer malformations and other ills.. Inference: She saw what she thought was a pack of wolves when in fact it was a three headed wolf.

Meh, let me know when the Bloodsuckers show up, then we'll have some fun.

(Genie from Aladdin) Watch out, they cloak! (/GfA)

(S.T.A.L.K.E.R. players will get this immediatly)

Re:Case in point

[rubberbando]

Inference: She saw what she thought was a pack of wolves when in fact it was a three headed wolf.

Was its name Cerberus?

Re:Case in point

[sanguisdev]

Fluffy the dog. it was a harry potter reference.

Re:Case in point

[Anonymous Coward]

Was its name Cerberus? [wikipedia.org]

No. Its name was Fluffy.

Re:Case in point

[witekr]

Heh, the second I saw this article, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. immediately came to mind. Mutated wild boars? Packs of wolves eating people's dogs? Crazy Russian ladies..?

Re:Case in point

[Anonymous Coward]

She needs to submit that as a flaw to the Kerberos mailing list. Sure, they like to say Kerberos is more secure, but that feels sort of empty if it's eating your pets. Geez, with stuff like that happening she'd be better off switching to NTLM.

Re:Case in point

[ckaminski]

No, in actuality it was Cerebus, the aardvark.

Isn't this really, really old?

[ravenshrike]

I could've sworn there was an article on this in some magazine several years ago.

Re:Isn't this really, really old?

[El Yanqui]

I swear I read about this a few years ago too. I had hoped this time around that we were talking about animals with superpowers.

Re:Isn't this really, really old?

[doombringerltx]

FTFA:

The return of wildlife to the region near the world's worst nuclear power accident, first reported more than a decade ago, is an apparent paradox that biologists are still trying to measure and understand. Its just checking back on it. Like those those VH1 "Where are they now?" shows. One looks at Vanilla Ice's career today, this looks at Chernobyl. Pretty similar disasters

Great!

[spungo]

Finally a town I can look normal in!

Returning only now?

[suv4x4]

No: it was full of wildlife for years now.

And yes, the DNA of most animals in the area is pretty effed up, but surprisingly most of them appear healthy and reproduce normally. Only goes to show how much redundancy and resilience is built into the DNA / replicating mechanisms we use.

Truth is, even with a sufficient number of a-bombs accross the world, we'll have a very hard time wijping all of humanity and wild life. Life's a tough mother f*cker, hard to destroy.

Re:Returning only now?

[Ngarrang]

No: it was full of wildlife for years now.

And yes, the DNA of most animals in the area is pretty effed up, but surprisingly most of them appear healthy and reproduce normally. Only goes to show how much redundancy and resilience is built into the DNA / replicating mechanisms we use.

Truth is, even with a sufficient number of a-bombs accross the world, we'll have a very hard time wijping all of humanity and wild life. Life's a tough mother f*cker, hard to destroy. I believe the word "adaptation" would describe this well.

Re:Returning only now?

[Trigun]

Truth is, even with a sufficient number of a-bombs accross the world, we'll have a very hard time wijping all of humanity and wild life. Life's a tough mother f*cker, hard to destroy.

I'll take that bet, sir.

Re:Returning only now?

[Aladrin]

Noooo, God reached down his noodly appendage and made them healthy!

You thought I was going to say something else, didn't you? ;)

Re:Returning only now?

[guruevi]

Life's a tough mother f*cker, hard to destroy.

Kinda like weeds?

And yes, this has been known since the early '90's, wildlife actually never totally disappeared and yes, one generation was screwed up with cancers and freaks but the next generations seem to have overcome that.

Re:Returning only now?

[Anonymous Coward]

ahh. You must be part of the white house.

Re:Returning only now?

[mcmonkey]

yes, one generation was screwed up with cancers and freaks but the next generations seem to have overcome that.

Just like we overcame being children of the baby boomers. Neat.

Re:Returning only now?

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

I think this hypothesis should be tested.

Re:Returning only now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth is, even with a sufficient number of a-bombs accross the world, we'll have a very hard time wijping all of humanity and wild life. Life's a tough mother f*cker, hard to destroy.

One antimatter bomb could destroy all life on earth by physically destroying the earth itself or knocking it out of stable orbit. With no residual radiation to boot! If you think such a weapon is not under development you are fooling yourself. When ready, only then will the earth truly know peace, as the alternative is total annihilation. I just hope the man who controls it has noble goals and solid beliefs.

Re:Returning only now?

[bcmm]

If you think such a weapon is not under development you are fooling yourself.

Uh... Right. Several issues there.

We can build something as extraordinarily powerful as a nuclear weapon because there is a lot of energy to be released from the fission of uranium or plutonium or whatever. This energy is stored in the bonds inside the unstable nuclei, and we just let it out. It was originally put in there when some exploding star made the uranium nuclei in question, long before the solar system was formed. We do not have to provide that energy.

Thing is, there are not similar reserves of naturally-occurring antimatter to be mined, because... well, it's kind of obvious. The problem is this: current (and any sensible-sounding future) methods of antimatter production involve actually putting in at least the amount of energy you want to get out. That mass won't come out of nowhere you know. So while it's all fine to say that an antimatter weapon would be scary because a really really small one could knock the planet off course, I have to ask you where you you think we're gonna get that much energy from. Maybe from a nuclear power plant? The amount of uranium used is going to be the amount you'd need to make a normal nuke big enough to do the same job, isn't it (that is to say, more than could conceivably be acquired)?

Also, what makes you think that the threat of total annihilation would bring peace? The threat of total annihilation is here already. Russia and the USA maintain far more weapons than they need to completely destroy the other, partly as protection against missiles being hit while still on the ground, etc. If all the world's weapons were to be detonated, it would likely destroy human life on the planet. If such a thing as a world-destroying antimatter bomb ever existed, people would do what the Soviet Union and the USA did with their nuclear arsenals: basically agree not to use them, and go on fighting with conventional weapons (yes, I know they didn't officially fight each other at any point, but USSR armed the Vietcong, US armed the Mujahideen, etc.).

Re:Returning only now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read somewhere (paraphrasing, as I don't have the original text, nor do I know to whom I should attribute it):

Yes, humans as a species will most likely survive such disasters. And by pruning out a large number of the "less fit," humans collectively might emerge even stronger and better than now. What we should never forget, however, is that while our descendants may eventually come to realize these benefits, every death is an individual tragedy now.

So humans might eventually recover after a nuclear winter or whatnot; there won't be a tragic end to the human species so easily. But it will still be a tragedy of immense proportions.

Re:Returning only now?

[NearlyHeadless]

And yes, the DNA of most animals in the area is pretty effed up, but surprisingly most of them appear healthy and reproduce normally.

One of the main studies that said that the DNA was effed up was later retracted. There's a very interesting article "Growing up with Chernobyl" (PDF) by Ronald K. Chesser and Robert J. Baker, that was published in the American Scientist (subscriber link). Baker is one of the scientists quoted in the featured article. In the "Growing up with Chernobyl, he says:

Soon after the paper was published, we acquired an automated sequencer that was more accurate than the manual methods used to sequence DNA. We had archived the tissues from all the animals used in our Nature study, so we decided to re-sequence the genes to compare the methods. To our horror, the automated sequencer failed to replicate the result we reported in Nature. The more accurate method failed to find an elevated mutation rate, even though we repeated the sequencing several times.

Re:Returning only now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Phew! Luckily they thought ahead and evolved redundant DNA information.

Re:Returning only now?

[SatanicPuppy]

No, that's not what he means.

For years it was assumed that a lot of the stuff in DNA that looked like random noise to us, was just junk data. The thought lately has been that it's more like a CRC, a Cyclic redundancy check, a mechanism to help find damage, as well as some other error detection and correction code.

So while the macro human animal is quite adaptable, it is also true that our DNA is far more robust and capable of withstanding crap like radiation than we ever gave it credit for when we were still coming to terms with the possible effects of radiation.

Re:Returning only now?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a minor flaw to your reasoning although I agree with your point.

As far as finding the power to make antimatter using nuclear fission, part of the energy from the matter-antimatter annihilation comes from the matter involved. Approximately half if not exactly half in fact. However much energy you put in to generate the antimatter you can get back twice the energy in the annihilation reaction from matter which you did not actually have to create.

Re:Returning only now?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a major flaw to your reasoning. Antimatter isn't created by itself - matter is created at the same time. The annihilation process is just the creation process running backwards. You'll need to put in *more* energy than you get out by the time it's all said & done (need energy to confine the antimatter until detonation, etc.).

Same as in Bikini

[mangu]

The Bikini atoll was also evacuated of people and set off-limits to fishing after the nuclear weapons tests the US did there in the 1950s. Today Bikini has the most abundant wildlife in the Pacific.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[LWATCDR]

In Florida Avon Park Bombing Range is also full of wildlife as is the Savannah River site in South Carolina.
Bombing and radiation is better for wildlife than sub divisions.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[jae471]

As is the Korean DMZ from what I've read.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Dystopian Rebel]

Bombing and radiation is better for wildlife than sub divisions. At last a solution for California that we can all accept.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[WyrdOne]

It's *Bimini* not Bikini.

*Sigh* Factual grammer is so hard to find these days.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[witte]

better for wildlife, because radiation keeps all those pesky polluting humans away ?

Re:Same as in Bikini

[DangerSteel]

http://www.bikiniatoll.com/ "*Sigh* Factual grammer is so hard to find these days." Yes it is....and so is grammar.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Bellum Aeternus]

Amazing how well nature does when you remove humanity from the equation, isn't it?

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Maxo-Texas]

Most of the problems of the world can be traced to the fact that we have 6 billion humans instead of 1 billion humans. If there were only a billion of us, the world would be an abundant paradise.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[dontthink]

Personally, I think the thriving animal populations in these areas have a lot to due not with the radiation, but with the lack/greatly reduced numbers of humans populating these areas. People are scared off by the radiation, but at these levels it basically increases the base genetic mutation/birth defect and cancer incidence rates at a level that doesn't really matter much to the growth of an animal population. A 5% increase in birth defects would scare the hell out of a human population though (understandably so). Point being, people leave -> animals move in unhindered.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[XxtraLarGe]

better for wildlife, because radiation keeps all those pesky polluting humans away ? There's pretty good evidence to suggest that wild animals are actually doing quite well BECAUSE of pesky polluting humans. Seagulls, raccoons, deer, bears, etc. (note: scavengers, herbivore & omnivore) are living off of our agriculture & food waste, and their populations are growing. Take a ride through Michigan, and you'll see dozens of dead deer and/or raccoons on the side of the road. This is getting to be a more common site. Not good for the individual animals, but pretty good evidence of increasing populations.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[skahshah]

Bimini is in the Bahamas, a choice destination for honeymooners, sportsmen and all sorts of tourists from Miami. The only thing that has ever been radiating there is happiness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimini

Bikini is an atoll in the Marshall Islands, where the US tested nuclear devices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Firethorn]

Another point would be that even if radiation levels were such that a lethal cancer would be 50% likely after 30 years, it wouldn't really matter to 99% of wildlife.

Mice and rodents generally have a lifespan measured in months, not years. A deer that makes it to adulthood has a maximum natural lifespan of around 15, if they make it to five they're doing good*. Large predators might live for a decade in the wild.

Most of the time, the continued existance of their races are predicated on the females having large numbers of young.

From my chernobyl research(done more than a decade ago), there has ALWAYS been a presense of plants and animals there. You have to remember, it was an actual small city, so in many cases large animal life was restricted to those that humans approved of. It takes time for concrete to crack and allow large trees such as are seen in the pictures to grow.

Then we have Baker and Mousseau argueing. I'll note that it appears that Baker appeared to concentrate on mammals(specifically rodents) while Mousseau concentrated on birds. Could it simply be that birds are more affected by radiation? That they have a tendency to wander more into the highest contamination areas? The very article notes that they've been found nesting in the sarcophagus.

While the article notes that a third of the nestlings showed abnormalities - I'd have to ask what the normal rate is. I'm aware that even normal barn swallow nestlings don't exactly have the highest survival rate.

To answer the questions, I think that the best solution would be one of radio tagging. We know average survival rates and such for outside the zone. Tag some animals, such as birds and deer, then track their survival and migration habits.

I think that we'd find that even if it's suboptimal, it's still a better area than many places activly occupied by humans.

*Does tend to live longer than bucks, as the bucks take more chances.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[kalirion]

Reminds me of Asimov's Robots and Empire where it is speculated that the reason there is such a great biodiversity on Earth (compared to other live-supporting planets) is the higher than normal radiation.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[zippthorne]

What are you.. a Bond villain? If you're going to start making statements like that, then you'll note that when the world actually had only a billion people, people were saying it should have less than 100 million.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[rleibman]

Most of the problems of the world can be traced to the fact that we have 6 billion humans instead of 1 billion humans. If there were only a billion of us, the world would be an abundant paradise.

Are you volunteering to get off?

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Maxo-Texas]

In a sense... yes.

I bred at less than my replacement level. If everyone in the word were to follow that tendency, we would be able to half the population by roughly 2050 and half it again in the 20 years after that so by 2100 the population would be roughly 1.5 billion. The chinese made some of these extremely hard choices with regard to overbreeding and overpopulation and have benefited from doing so.

The problem is that ignorant poor people and some religious people are going to breed us to the point where things are unpleasant all the time at the best or downright ugly and murderous at the worst.

Overbreeding would be no problem if the overbreeders and their descendants were limited to a fixed plot of land. That way the descendants of people with sustainable breeding habits could live in a paradise while the overbreeders lived in hell on earth, died of starvation, and killed each other over precious water and living space.

But no-- their descendants would feel they had a right to spread equally into everyone else's land. Thus spreading the consequences of their poor breeding choices.

You can buy all the CFC's you want, conserve til you bleed, eat only grains (because meat is so inefficient) and eventually that will all be pointless unless a lot of humans die fast from something. Too many humans is the fundamental problem-- not global warming, not limited oil, not limited food, not limited water.

If we do not address this fundamental problem- then everything else we do is similar to ignoring the huge hungry rampaging elephant in the room while we keep replacing the carpet and drapes.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[maxume]

Deer lack a significant predator(other than humans; the hunting season serves the purpose of population management). Coyotes might bring down the occasional sick deer, but wolves are the natural predator that they are missing in most of the lower peninsula(and much of the upper peninsula and Wisconsin). People won't stand for them, so a hunting we will go.

Bears are doing o.k., but they have less and less habitat available, and they like to range around a bit. People definitely freak out when they build a house in bear habitat and end up seeing bears, which usually doesn't work out well for the bears.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Anonymous Coward]

You think maybe it might have something to do with the fact that no people live in these bombed out irradiated sites?

I've always wanted to try Bikini on for size.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Maxo-Texas]

Perhaps it should.

While a lot of our problems didn't become serious until we hit 5+ billion people... we may have been ruining quality of life way before 1 billion.

Most of the food we eat these days is much lower in nutrition than it used to be.

Even in the 1950's you could have a full breakfast of one egg (watch some old movies- those things look like baseballs).

The closer and finer we cut things- the more catastrophic the eventual failure will be.

---

Side example: A company found it could save a ton of money by centralizing to one location for processing instead of 35 locations. The problem-- about once per decade, the company would lose a site (various reasons- hurricane, power outage, fire). Whereas previously that company could carry the load on the other locations, the day it lost that central site- it was pretty much toast. So it saved a lot of money, was very efficient, and then got hurt very badly.

Humans are doing this. A lot of areas would have massive die-offs if food transportation broke down for only a few weeks. These will be exposed if we have a major war or pandemic. But I guess we will never ever have one of those again in the history of man since none of this stuff is being designed to account for those little problems.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[sjames]

In many species of birds, only the strongest of the nestlings survives anyway, 1/3 - 2/3. Whilethe radiation induced abnormalities are not a GOOD thing, they may simply become the dominant selection factor for survival rather than actually reducing overall species survival.

That doesn't mean the radiation is harmless, just that it's harm is more limited than one might think.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[beyondkaoru]

we could always try this:
http://www.vhemt.org/ :)

Re:Same as in Bikini

[LWATCDR]

Except that the US isn't suffering from over population. That is what drives me nuts. There are places in Australia where rabbits are destroying the habitat because of massive over population. Killing off a few in Texas just isn't going to help. Killing hundreds or thousands in Texas isn't going to help. The Population of the US is pretty much flat and soon to be slightly declining once the Baby boomer's start to die off. In Europe and Japan you are seeing the same thing or a strong decline. That will do nothing to really help since the over population problem is other locations.
I am all for people having only enough children that they can raise. I am all for adoption as well if you want a very large family. But this "I only had a replacement" thing is just posturing.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Chandon Seldon]

I bred at less than my replacement level. If everyone in the word were to follow that tendency...

But they won't, and so all you accomplished is selecting yourself out of the gene pool.

We have a ton of resources on the planet. Supporting more humans with the resources that we have is a reasonably easy problem technologically. Yes, we have a high population compared to what a species without agriculture (and modern agriculture) could do, but we have those things. The earth could handle a bunch more population, but the trends indicate that human population growth is slowing quickly enough that it won't be a real issue.

The appropriate tactic here isn't to have less kids, it's to have as many kids as you think you can reasonably educate. The only way we'll be able to keep quality of life up as a species is to have as high a percentage of well educated people as possible - that way there will be people around to suggest and implement rational solutions to problems.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[FrostedChaos]

You can buy all the CFC's you want, conserve til you bleed, eat only grains (because meat is so inefficient) and eventually that will all be pointless unless a lot of humans die fast from something. Too many humans is the fundamental problem-- not global warming, not limited oil, not limited food, not limited water.

Nature is not your friend. It hates you.

Nothing is "fair," in the human sense, in nature. Some species lay their eggs inside other species. Sometimes horrible catastrophes happen that wipe out entire races or phylums. And always, every species tries to get ahead at the expense of everyone else.

Ethics, morality, society... these are human concepts. They do not apply to nature. Your sympathies are misplaced. I agree that the degradation of the environment is a problem that needs to be addressed. But it is a problem because of how it impacts humans, not because of how it impacts nature. Nature is nothing more than a horrible Darwinistic killing field. It might look peaceful, because to us, it moves slowly. But that is still what it is. Don't fool yourself.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[jotok]

The problem is that ignorant poor people and some religious people are going to breed us to the point where things are unpleasant all the time at the best or downright ugly and murderous at the worst.

I dunno if you know your history, but pretty much every time we've tried enforced limits on "breeding" it has started out unpleasant, then gotten downright ugly before eventually turning murderous.

But hey, don't let all the failures of the past stop you. This time I'm sure you'll get it right.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[zippthorne]

The path you take leads to extermination. You think you'll be satisfied at 1 billion, but it goes like zipf's law: at 1 billion, you'll want 150 million, at 150 million, you'll want 25 million...

The problem is not the number of people: if there are x number of people on the earth, by definition the earth can support at least that many. The problem is distribution of wealth.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[djh101010]

In a sense... yes.

I bred at less than my replacement level. If everyone in the word were to follow that tendency, we would be able to half the population by roughly 2050 and half it again in the 20 years after that so by 2100 the population would be roughly 1.5 billion. The problem is, those who take a rational approach and "breed at less than their replacement value" are vastly outnumbered by people who, for cultural and/or religious reasons, are still on a mission to "be fruitful and multiply". As a friend of mine (a pastor in a rather conservative evangelical church as it happens) said, "OK, we've succeeded in that particular assignment already, mark it as done and try that whole 'be nice to others' thing next maybe".

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Bob-taro]

I bred at less than my replacement level. If everyone in the word were to follow that tendency, we would be able to half the population by roughly 2050 and half it again in the 20 years after that so by 2100 the population would be roughly 1.5 billion. The chinese made some of these extremely hard choices with regard to overbreeding and overpopulation and have benefited from doing so.

You take a bold position there. You're looking to China as an example? According to some Chinese people I know, one of the reasons their population increased so much was that a few decades ago, the government encouraged people to have many children to build a big army. It's a classic example of why socialism and central planning doesn't work -- no one is really selfless enough or intelligent enough to make those decisions for everyone else. If you want to make that decision for yourself -- go ahead.

The problem is that ignorant poor people and some religious people are going to breed us to the point where things are unpleasant all the time at the best or downright ugly and murderous at the worst.

Way to characterize and stereotype! So all you smart, rich, atheists would get along fine if it weren't for everybody else messing it up, huh? I'm wondering who's been telling you we're on the brink of doom? Because eggs are smaller? I'll heartily agree that "Big Corporate Eggs" are terrible compared to eggs from the farm down the road (I live in a rural area), but I think by many standards we are not (yet) in a decline due to overpopulation. Is life expectancy going up or down? Standard of living? Birth defects? I'm sure there is some point past which we're going to be in trouble, but it seems presumptuous to me to say that we're already there and then to start telling people how many children they can have.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Maxo-Texas]

I'm not pro-nature.

I'm saying our quality of life would be much more enjoyable at lower population levels.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Maxo-Texas]

No.

it's a fact that families of some religions have 6+ children per generation.
it's also a fact that people in poverty have more children (3+ average)
it's also a fact that ignorant (not stupid-- but yes probably stupid too) people have larger families.

Sure-- some educated, middle class and richer families have 6 kids-- but on average, as a group (stereotypical), they do not replace themselves.

In America- hispanics will be the dominant population in the southwest. Mostly because pf poor, catholic families that like a couple more kids more than 52" television sets or ski trips in colorado.

Stereotypes are pretty terrible when talking about "Bob" or "Jose" because individuals are all unique. But stereotypes are exceedingly useful when discussing general characteristics of large populations. You could say "the typical behavior of the population" but it lacks the negative semantic loading to support the point you were trying to make that I'm a bigot rather than that I'm just saying facts that are pretty clear and are going to inexorably going to lead us down certain paths that do not go to good places.

I'll leave you with this thoguht. Most wars (some say all- but they ignore religion) are over resources. Overpopulation is the primary reason resources will seem scarce. You want to stop war- stop overpopulation.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Maxo-Texas]

Oh please.
At current growth rates, the weight of people will equal the weight of the earth in 500 years.

The population is currently calculated to level off before 2100... basically at a level where more people than are alive now will live their entire lives suffering for lack of nutrition. Where things like beach property, private islands, lovely parks are only enjoyed by a fraction of 1% of the population -- or are destroyed by the sheer mass of everyone else enjoying them.

Keep whistling past and on into the graveyard tho.

We don't need terrible measures- we just need people to stop having babies. For one thing- in america, we need to remove the tax benefits as just one more way to lower the birth rate a little more.

The large population increases the wealth effect. The fact is that only 10,000 freshmen can start at harvard or mit each year whether you have 100 million or 500 million american citizens. You have to select either on money or aptitude. The larger the population, the smaller percentage that gets the "cool stuff" because the cool stuff is really scarce and limited.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Anonymous Coward]

For overpopulation, see countries like India or Bangladesh. I would not want to live in either place.

We impact nature and nature impacts us. There is no way around it. The more people on this planet, the more problems there will be.We are already way over the carrying capacity of the planet for human population. About 10X over. At modern lifestyles in the western countries, the planet has a carrying capacity of no more than 500 million. If you remove the entire CO2 emission problem and long term soil degradation, you could probably increase that number closer to 1 billion, but that is still stretching.

500 million. That's the magic number for a planet of this size. Anything more is not sustainable over a long term. Our current population is not sustainable over a short term! (in 5 generations conditions on this planet will degenerate to almost unlivable if we continue as today)

50-100 million people is the limit if you want to pollute all you want.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[apt142]

The fascinating thing about technologically advanced regions is that the reproductive rates are much lower than low tech areas. This is because in technologically advanced cultures children have a higher cost/benefit ratio than in lower techs. Lower techs need the children to tend the field, watch the sheep, etc. etc. Where as higher techs need to spend money to educate and groom their children into productive roles.

I find this particularly neat in that the easiest deterent of overpopulation is perhaps technological proliferation.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[disasm]

Someone's on a religious jihad today...

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Frenchy_2001]

Bombing and radiation is better for wildlife than sub divisions.
No, absence of human presence and natural environments are higher factors for wildlife growth than radiation is for the decline. So, as humans do not enter irradiated zones, the wildlife is thriving there.

Makes a lot of sense in fact...

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you forgot the mexicans who are raiding our country. They bread uneducated scum like rabbits!

Re:Same as in Bikini

[cartman]

Overbreeding would be no problem if the overbreeders and their descendants were limited to a fixed plot of land. That way the descendants of people with sustainable breeding habits could live in a paradise while the overbreeders lived in hell on earth, died of starvation, and killed each other over precious water and living space.

Tragically, that is pretty much what happens in the world right now.

The problem is that ignorant poor people and some religious people are going to breed us to the point where things are unpleasant all the time at the best or downright ugly and murderous at the worst.

The catholic church has been outrageously stupid in encouraging high birth rates in 3rd world countries. But that hasn't been the main problem. In poor places, having many children (a few of which survive) is the only way of providing for one's own survival during retirement.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Arterion]

There may also be less smart people to solve the problems that the population, of whatever size, might face.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[droopycom]

I agree!

Killing only One in Texas should be enough to help.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Chandon Seldon]

I find this particularly neat in that the easiest deterrent of overpopulation is perhaps technological proliferation.

A lot of people seem to share that opinion, but say it different ways. Some people talk about "better education", other people talk about "less poverty", others talk about "industrialization". In this context they're all basically the same thing - the overpopulation problem will go away if more people are better educated, have better jobs, and have more money.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[LWATCDR]

Keep your racism to yourself. I have not problems with immegration. The Mexicans I have meet that have come to this country are all hard work people that I welcome.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Anonymous Coward]

It's urbanization. Urban centers have always been population sinks. They grow through migration rather than through their birth rates which are significantly reduced compared to rural populations.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[turing_m]

"The fascinating thing about technologically advanced regions is that the reproductive rates are much lower than low tech areas."

There is no reason why this is, was, or will be the case always. Few people are Economic Man, the "rational and self-interested actor who desires wealth, avoids unnecessary labor, and has the ability to make judgments towards those ends", and makes the choice of how many children he has on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis.

The same naturally selected instincts that drive parents to think nothing of putting their lives on the line when harm threatens their children can also cause them to scrimp, save, have more children, and find workarounds for the many needlessly expensive things involved in city life.

We have had several harsh selection pressures recently, most noticeably the contraceptive pill, widespread and easily obtained abortions, and omnipresent advertising that tells us that unless we buy the overpriced crap they are hawking (intead of having and providing for our families), we won't be happy.

In response to harsh selection pressures, those who are selected against die off, and those who are selected for, reproduce. Exponential growth does the rest.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[zolaar]

> ..the easiest deterent of overpopulation is perhaps technological proliferation..

Interesting word choices, given the topic article's general premise and when talking about a population reduction c/o advanced technology...

::also giggled at "particularly neat" but not everyone is quite drunk enough for punnery, and I don't have much karma::

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because most attempts to limit reproduction have been though limiting intimacy and sex drives which result in those desires being remanifested in aggressive behavior. Aside from a some mystical documents, population management does not require sexual abstinence.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that niggers, ragheads and other wogs are going to breed us to the point where things are unpleasant all the time at the best or downright ugly and murderous at the worst.

Fixed.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[Maxo-Texas]

That's a valid point.

It extends in all directions tho.

Less bad people to cause problems.

Less insane people to want to kill everyone.

Smaller groups of insane people trying to kill everyone else.

But i grant that there would be less smart people to solve problems.

Re:Same as in Bikini

[jollyreaper]

What are you.. a Bond villain? If you're going to start making statements like that, then you'll note that when the world actually had only a billion people, people were saying it should have less than 100 million. But what if we had...*pinky held up to mouth*...a million people?

Re:Same as in Bikini

[jdelisle]

"most abundant wildlife in the Pacific" According to what source?

Movies

[Lovedumplingx]

If movies have taught me anything it's that this is the start of the downfall of man.

In a few years we'll be herded into wooden pens by mounted apes and then experimented on.

Oh the folly of it all!!!

Re:Movies

[Anonymous Coward]

You maniac!

Re:Movies

[sherms]

You know the next horror show is coming from that setting.

No mention of insects and arthropods

[Danathar]

It's an interesting article, but it mainly talks only about mammals and occasionally vegetation. The effect of radiation on high reproduction insects would be far more interesting.

Re:No mention of insects and arthropods

[Philotic]

It's an interesting article, but it mainly talks only about mammals and occasionally vegetation. The effect of radiation on high reproduction insects would be far more interesting. Wasp populations in the exclusion zone exhibit a wider diversity of patterns on their bodies, but I believe their populations are doing just fine. Mushrooms that live in nutrient rich top soil are also thriving. Fish in the reactor coolant water pools near Chernobyl itself are also doing quite well.

There's a rare breed of horses, called Przewalski's horses, that had gone exinct in the wild. Scientists and breeders had been looking for a suitable site to reintroduce them, but it proved difficult to find an ample amount of their natural habitat that hadn't been developed on. The exclusion area around Chernobyl is ideal for Przewalskis, and two herds have been introduced there. So far, so good.

Photos

[suv4x4]

Any photos of giant insects or ninja turtles? At least maybe a cross between a spider and a man?

Damn. Radiation in real life is BORING.

Re:Photos

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a photo of an amazing mutation. Nowhere else can be found another specimen with such a huge body part as this one.

Re:Photos

[cpt.hugenstein]

There can not be reports or photos of Ninja Turtles since they have no source of green ooze

Lesser of the two evils

[Slaimus]

Given the choice of sharing the environment with humans or radiation, animals would much rather have the radiation.

Re:Lesser of the two evils

[Akaihiryuu]

It's hard for even high radiation levels to kill *everything*. Life adapts and survives. Radiation is far less damaging to wildlife than human presence is.

Re:Lesser of the two evils

[Gryle]

Given the choice between rooming with a cow, and rooming with a freezer full of beef, I'll take the beef thanks. Your point?

Re:Lesser of the two evils

[diamondsw]

Radiation is far less damaging to wildlife than human presence is.

What about massive radiation caused by human presence?

Re:Lesser of the two evils

[Akaihiryuu]

> What about massive radiation caused by human presence? Point taken, but the human presence is almost completely gone from the area now, thus allowing the wildlife to take over. Empty area + radiation = more wildlife than human presence + no radiation.

Why is this in HARDWARE?

[greginnj]

Are these bionic AMD-64 running mutant radioactive wildlife critters, or something?

Re:Why is this in HARDWARE?

[mstahl]

Nuclear power plants are hardware. Big, dangerous, fancy hardware.

Re:Why is this in HARDWARE?

[apt142]

It doesn't work anymore. It's as much a peice of hardware as my paper weight. Now, I will grant you that it is a big, dangerous, fancy paper.. er.. forest.. er.. post nuclear catastrophy weight.

Re:Why is this in HARDWARE?

[jollyreaper]

Are these bionic AMD-64 running mutant radioactive wildlife critters, or something? Maybe.....you can run Linux on them! God help us if they can be Beowulf clustered!

Ah...

[theTrueMikeBrown]

"In explaining their starkly differing views, Baker and Mousseau criticize each other's studies as poorly designed."

Science at its best.

Re:Ah...

[ender-]

"In explaining their starkly differing views, Baker and Mousseau criticize each other's studies as poorly designed."

Science at its best. Exactly. I'm sure it couldn't possibly have something to do with the fact that they are studying different animals, of which perhaps the mice are thriving and the barn swallows are not.

Nope, it must be the other guy's fault.

Re:Ah...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would they rather have the experiments intellegently designed?

And ironically, the confirmation word/image for this post is "church".

Counter t to Creation Museum?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fundies have their Creation Museum, Chernobyl is like the Evolution Museum: watch as the animals mutate right before your eyes!

Re:Counter t to Creation Museum?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

In [certain parts of] Soviet Russia, eyes mutate before animals!!!!!

Animals are no stranger to radiation

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

Correct me where I'm wrong here, but I believe animal bodies have developed some pretty good ways of dealing with radiation over the eons. I know my skin does a fair job of managing UV radiation - though I will probably be darkening it when the therapy is available.

I wonder, has the antioxidant level in the plant life been measured? How much research is there in regards to long-term, lower-dose radiation exposure not just to individual organisms, but to ecosystems. Ecosystems are like massive organisms themselves.

I would think that selective pressures are probably biting at the bit to get working on increasing tolerance in populations inhabiting these no-man-lands.

Re:Animals are no stranger to radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

For future reference; you don't "bite at the bit", correct usage is "champ at the bit"

Re:Animals are no stranger to radiation

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

Neat. Thanks, I will remember this.

Short Lifespan

[drinkypoo]

If you only need a couple of years to become old enough to breed and do so, then you're more likely to live long enough to reproduce in pretty much any situation. Nature abhors a vacuum...

"If this is paradise...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dense forests have reclaimed farm fields and apartment house courtyards. Residents, visitors and some biologists report seeing wildlife - including moose and lynx - rarely sighted in the rest of Europe. Birds even nest inside the cracked concrete sarcophagus shielding the shattered remains of the reactor."

"...I wish I had a lawnmower."

Re:"If this is paradise...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dense forests have reclaimed farm fields and apartment house courtyards. Residents, visitors and some biologists report seeing wildlife - including moose and lynx - rarely sighted in the rest of Europe. Birds even nest inside the cracked concrete sarcophagus shielding the shattered remains of the reactor."

Most interestingly, previously unknown species, such as the winged lynx, have been observed in their natural habitat battling the fireball spewing moose for dominance over a new, fertile, glowing forest.

The news is old...

[paladinwannabe2]

But now there is an article about it on the internet, making it original, novel, and fit for Slashdot.

For anyone interested...

[Known Nutter]

...or looking for an intriguing read on a Friday morning, this young lady Elena describes her motorcycle ride to and through the so called Chernobyl "dead zone", with pictures. Interesting read.

Re:For anyone interested...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that this photo journal has been posted here before. IIRC the photos are genuine, but the "riding my bike by myself" story is fantasy, she just went on the same guided tour anyone can go on.

Re:For anyone interested...

[thygrrr]

It's ony of my favourite documentary sites on the net. The images are impressive, the concise comments touching and to the point.

Re:For anyone interested...

[Slim Backwater]

It's a good story, but only a story; she took a guided tour like anyone else entering the area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Filatova

Re:For anyone interested...

[jshriverWVU]

This was posted on /. a year or two ago. Wasn't it found out that the story was faked?

Re:For anyone interested...

[Blakey Rat]

It was "faked" in that she lied about taking a motorcycle through the zone by herself. She just took the normal tour and had photos taken of her holding a helmet. Why? Who knows... I guess touring the zone isn't exciting enough by itself, you have to be on a motorcycle too.

Re:For anyone interested...

[AKAImBatman]

It's *very* important to remember that while her pictures are real, her story isn't. While she claims to have a nuclear scientist for a father, she actually gives a lot of erroneous information that can lead the reader to incorrect conclusions about the number of deaths, sequence of events, and actions taken during the accident.

Sooo... for once read something for its pictures, not its articles. :P

Re:For anyone interested...

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

This website has been debunked for a long time. See
http://biffovision.blogspot.com/2006/06/chernobyl- diary-part-six.html
and scroll down a few paragraphs. The Kid of Speed girl used props to enhance her photos, but she didn't ride her motorcycle as claimed through the exclusion zone.

Biological Magnification?

[loimprevisto]

Are there any scientists/historians out there who can comment on whether the radioisotopes involved are the types that would work their way up the food chain? It seems this would make a big difference in which critters thrived and which ones couldn't make it...

Dupe!

[luder]

This was already discussed one year ago. It's the 6th result when you search for "chernobyl"...

Hardware?

[XxtraLarGe]

O.K., we have a game story about odd moments in games filed under "Politics" instead of "Games" and an environmental story filed under "Hardware" instead of "Science". Methinks maybe some /. editors have been spending a bit too much time in Chernobyl themselves, and it's had a deleterious affect on their "1337 categorization skillz".

Re:Hardware?

[Idarubicin]

Methinks maybe some /. editors have been spending a bit too much time in Chernobyl themselves, and it's had a deleterious affect on their "1337 categorization skillz".

Nah. The categories just mutated.

Re:Hardware?

[Richy_T]

O.K., we have a game story about odd moments in games filed under "Politics"

I can't find this and it sounds interesting. Any chance you could provide a link?

Thanks

Rich

Re:Hardware?

[XxtraLarGe]

It has subsequently been moved to Games. You can find it HERE.

EXCLUSIVE PHOTO!

[Anonymous Coward]

I present to you this EXCLUSIVE photo, taken at great risk to life and limb. This is truly a remarkable specimen. Behold, the wildlife at Chernobyl!

I regret that I must remain anonymous, but if anyone found out I was this deep in the exclusion zone, I could be in deep trouble.

Hunting at Chernobyl

[mcsqueak]

There is a fun little travel DVD called the "Vice guide to travel", put out by the folks who do Vice magazine. One of their little bits is that they go to Chernobyl and try to hunt radioactive boars with large guns. (another bit on the DVD was visiting the world's largest illegal arms market in Pakistan). It's worth renting... very fun little movie.

Re:Hunting at Chernobyl

[oftencloudy]

do they also hunt bandits and the military as well?

Darwin in Action

[queenb**ch]

They will either evolve to accomodate their new conditions or they will die. It will be interesting to see if we get new species evolving more rapidly there or if the existing populations just wither and die off. Frankly, I would suspect that most of the animals there have been driven out of habitat elsewhere. That's how Mother Nature works. The looser is always the one that migrates. I'm not complaining much because that's what drove apes out of the forest and on to the plains to become the first hominids.

2 cents,

QueenB.

Re:Darwin in Action

[non]

The looser is always the one that migrates. I'm not complaining much because that's what drove apes out of the forest and on to the plains to become the first hominids.

hmmm, are you sure you're not contradicting yourself? you're saying that are apes that migrated out of the forest, and the go on to say,

The looser is always the one that migrates.

which is a hypothesis that really doesn't have much validity. change, ie. evolution, almost never happens at the center of a population. at least not the kind of change that drives evolution. it happens at the edge, on the boundary, or wherever there is an unexploited niche, whether it be taking to the air, or returning to the see, or taking advantage of some previously unexploited resource. when it comes to the apes they left the forest because they could no longer find sufficient resources there, whether due to increased competition (unlikely), or due reduced resources.

Re:Darwin in Action

[anonymous_wombat]

And now, an actor playing Charles Darwin will explain why radiation is a good thing.

Re:Darwin in Action

[teh*fink]

They will either evolve to accomodate their new conditions or they will die. It will be interesting to see if we get new species evolving more rapidly there or if the existing populations just wither and die off. Frankly, I would suspect that most of the animals there have been driven out of habitat elsewhere. That's how Mother Nature works. The looser is always the one that migrates. I'm not complaining much because that's what drove apes out of the forest and on to the plains to become the first hominids.

i think this would be an interesting discussion to have. some points:

1. i don't think the environmental conditions are considerably "new". it seems as if the environmental pressures of the area are approaching a pre-industrialized state, say 200-300 years ago. as for radiation, see no.3
2. i would not suspect most of the animals living there now were driven out of their existing habitats; rather i would expect a natural diffusion into an uninhabited area. nor would i suspect the current inhabitants are separate species migrating to a new area, as in your example; while i don't know specifics on northern ukrainian wildlife or flora & fauna, i imagine the explosion blew a hole in an existing population, and did not completely exterminate any existing species from the area
3. would new species really evolve more rapidly or at all? the only major difference in environmental pressure would be the increase in radiation levels, which don't appear to be great enough to favor the creation of new species based solely on protection of reproductive ability (the only necessary additional survival trait); i infer from the article's limited information that animals are living long enough to reproduce, whatever ills they may be afflicted with
4. based on an evolutionary timeline, the environmental pressure of high radiation levels is a blip on the radar screen (albeit a larger blip) due to caesium's 30 year half-life
   
   in short, i would not expect new species to evolve any differently than elsewhere in the ukraine, ceteris paribus. your thoughts?

Re:Darwin in Action

[Anonymous Coward]

"The looser is..."

You're a "looser"

Re:Darwin in Action

[ahodgson]

to increased competition (unlikely), or due reduced resources.

A little of both, as I understand it. Monkeys evolved to eat things other primates couldn't, which upped their population and increased competition in general. Climate change and the evolution of grasses greatly decreased forest coverage and created the savannas, both reducing available habitat and creating the new opportunity.

Re:Darwin in Action

[queenb**ch]

In the case of hominids, it is quite likely that they didn't want to leave the forest that they were already adapted to quite well. Why would you *want* to do that? Why risk life and limb and probably extinction in an environment where you aren't adapted and aren't familiar? Why does anyone leave a nice comfy spot? Something drove them out. My bet is that it is was another tribe of apes. And yes, the losers migrate. Look at the Native Americans. They're quite a good model for this. Their roots can be traced both genetically and linguistically. They drove each other all over the continent and, yes the losers were the ones who migrated.

2 more cents,

QueenB.

STALKER

[elmCitySlim]

It wasn't a three headed wolf she saw, or a pack of wild wolves. It was 3 heads of a wolf flying around in a gravity vortex.

Re:STALKER

[DpakoH]

This is hidden advertising of the game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STALKER

pointless blackadder quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Percy: "Only this morning in the courtyard I saw a horse with two heads, and two bodies"
Blackadder: "Could it have been...two horses perhaps?"

Anyway, they will adapt soon

[iamacat]

There are already bacteria living in active zones of nuclear reactors. Animals with fast reproductive cycle will likely adapt first, both because of faster evolution - especially in the face of accelerated mutations - and because they don't have to survive as long to produce offsprings. It's only a matter of decades before we catch 5 eared rabbits with ECC in their DNA in addition to RAID1 that we currently have.

Re:Anyway, they will adapt soon

[Animats]

There are already bacteria living in active zones of nuclear reactors. ... ECC in their DNA in addition to RAID1 that we currently have.

Those bacteria have quadruple-strand DNA. and an extra error-correction loop.

Re:Anyway, they will adapt soon

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm willing to bet DNA contains error correction techniques we haven't even imagined yet.

Re:Anyway, they will adapt soon

[ColdWetDog]

Interesting link, but to be pedantic, since I didn't find any obvious grammar errors: The term quadruple-stranded DNA appears incorrect according to your reference. They have multiple copies of what appears to be garden variety dual stranded DNA wrapped up into an interesting an unusual structure. Multiple genomic copies aren't unusual (we are diploid, two copies for most chromosomes) but they use an unusual, but not unique, error correction system.

So the critter is able to tolerate truly astonishing levels of radiation by mixing and matching some fairly prosaic molecular structures.

Strong work for the FSM!

Re:Anyway, they will adapt soon

[mdsolar]

It is not too suprising to find pretty good adaptation to a radiation environment among bacteria. They started earlier when natural radiation levels were higher. Some http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/06101 9192814.htm are adapted to using remaining radioactivity as an energy source. The ruggedness of bacteria was one of the motivations of the panspermia theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia.
--
Rent solar power at 2005 electric rates: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Category check...

[Dancindan84]

Um... hardware? Are the radioactive wildlife being used as PSUs in Russian computers? If so, I missed that in TFA.

Insect

[aepervius]

Aren't insect more resilient to radiation in general ? Thus the joke about the cockroach being the next master of earth in case the A,H and other 1 letter bomb start to fall ?

Re:Insect

[Chris Burke]

Thus the joke about the cockroach being the next master of earth in case the A,H and other 1 letter bomb start to fall ?

The F-bomb?

Re:Insect

[VWJedi]

Thus the joke about the cockroach being the next master of earth in case the A,H and other 1 letter bomb start to fall ?

The F-bomb?

As the level of F-bomb use increases, each subsequent generation becomes more tolerant of its use and use it themselves with ever-increasing frequency. (Have you been inside a high school recently?)

That's evolution for you!

Re:Insect

[stonecypher]

No, though certain classes of insect are. I believe that what grandparent was getting at was the effect on accelerating mutation with regards to natural selection. High breeding rate insects sometimes see as much as two batches of 10,000 children per year; whereas there hasn't been enough time to see an effect on natural selection in creatures like large animals, which typically have single gestation frequency in the one or more years, there've been more than enough generations of mayflies, termites and spiders to start wondering about a statistical basis for radiation's effect on biological diversification.

There are some people out there who think things like the cambrian explosion were the result of temporary major acceleration of mutation rates, and whereas I don't agree with that line of thought, it is both interesting and possible - especially if we're talking about an environmental factor, like radiation. We don't irradiate biospheres regularly, so this isn't something we have a whole bunch of data on.

I, like grandparent, would love to know how different the great(20)-grandchildren of the Chernobyl bugs are.

Both are probably true

[logicnazi]

The article seems to posit a false dichotomy between increased rates of cancer and deformity and a flourishing animal population. The usual mutation rate for most animals is pretty damn small. You could probably increase it 100 fold if not more and still maintain a large population of healthy breeding animals. Since animals, like humans, are naturally programed to prefer to breed with healthy members of their species there is no reason to think that the harmful mutations would 'take over' and cause the local animals to die out. Also just because more animals die of cancer doesn't mean they don't live long enough to successfully breed.

I mean it should be a lot like inbreeding. Sure inbreeding increases the number of seriously fucked up members of the population significantly so you wouldn't want to do it with humans but it can also be used to help establish certain useful traits fairly quickly. The animals living in the Chernobyl area might have more deformed babies, and no doubt if they had to fairly compete with non-irradiated members of their kind they would be at a disadvantage, but the long term effect might just be to increase the rate at which they evolve.

Of course you can't really decide this with a thought experiment but it is annoying that the article suggests increased deformity and cancer rates in individual animals is incompatible with overall health of the species/group.

Re:Both are probably true

[epine]

The scientists involved failed to note that the predator and prey populations are under equal hardship within this ecosystem. A mutation that might be absolutely lethal in to an individual sheep among a flock of healthy sheep pursued by a pack of healthy wolves is not necessarily such great survival hardship when every third sheep has a spare body part, and half the wolves have cleft palate or pit nipples.

Re:Both are probably true

[Locklin]

Your comment seems logical, except for the comparison with inbreeding.

Inbreeding decreases genotypic diversity, thus *slowing* adaptation. This is quite the opposite of introducing a higher mutation rate (as with radiation). In one case, you end up with more expressed deleterious phenotypes, but the same amount of genotypes. In the other, you get many new genotypes, many of which leads to deleterious phenotypes, but also leading to adaptations.

Re:Both are probably true

[khallow]

This is incorrect. Genotypic diversity can hinder adaptation, if the animal population has a large number of genes that are ill suited to the environment or if there's a highly advantageous recessive gene that can be masked by multiple genes.

Re:Both are probably true

[Locklin]

Neither situations are going to exist naturally, at least in the longer term, as they are basically unstable equilibriums. A large number of deleterious genotypes will be weeded out by natural selection. An advantageous recessive gene is just as likely to be increased as it is likely to be decreased due to inbreeding -ie. inbreeding will only cause that specific allele to move to fixation based on chance.

So GSC knows more than we do?

[auld_wyrm]

The delay of STALKER was due to the difficulty of motion capturing actual mutated wolves and boars?

How long before Jack Thompson takes somebody to court because some kid went wandering into Chernobyl NPP in search of a monolith and ended up dead?

Its not old news if you're american

[Viol8]

Because americans are well known for forgetting all about the rest of the world (unless they're invading it) so mentioning something nuclear in some strange (to them) country that happened 20 years ago is really exotic and cool and they naturally think they're the first people to discover it.

Re:Its not old news if you're american

[Anonymous Coward]

You misspelled "nucular".

Re:Its not old news if you're american

[BosstonesOwn]

President Bush ?

Yeah I know I will get modded down , but it was well worth the laugh.

Re:Its not old news if you're american

[MightyYar]

A smug cloud has been spotted over Europe, apparently impeding their ability to keep their G8 promises to Bono.

Re:Its not old news if you're american

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad troll! Try not to let your hatred for our terrible government drive your ignorant prejudice. If you think Americans are so bad, you might refrain from using telephones, light bulbs, sewing machines, anything that uses transistors... inventions of Americans, not American government.

While /. certainly isn't in it's golden years anymore, it is still not a forum for discrimination. If that is your attitude, please go elsewhere.

Re:Its not old news if you're american

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get modded downm it's not cuz people disagree. It's cuz it was unnecessary to 'splain the joke, kay?

Re:Its not old news if you're american

[janrinok]

Well said! I hope that this will also mean that there will be, in future, no criticism of the French, Russians or, in fact, anyone who isn't an American unless the criticism is on-topic and relevant? No, I thought not....

In Soviet Russia...

[Tatisimo]

In Soviet Russia, animals take over your living space!

oblig Stalker reference

[Novotny]

Well, this may be true, but have you played STALKER? Have you seen the bloody wildlife? I'm staying WELL clear

Screw the affects on animals

[hellfire]

One of the elderly residents who refused to evacuate the contaminated area says packs of wolves have eaten two of her dogs, and wild boar trample through her cornfield. Scientist are divided as to whether or not the animals are flourishing in the highly radioactive environment

Call me selfish or humanocentric, but I'd be very interested in a study on this person! That would be incredibly interesting. It's amazing to me that a person has subsisted in this area for all this time.

Re:Screw the affects on animals

[Firethorn]

Believe it or not, she's not that unusual. There are actually hundreds of people still living there, who refused to leave after the disaster.

Their numbers have dwindled, mostly because all those of childbearing age and under left and haven't returned. Natural causes take their toll each year.

One thing I do remember is that they haven't shown as much of an increase in cancer rate as expected. Sorry, no source. Hmm.. Interesting read about marginal radiation doses... They may actually be helpfull.

An interesting read.

[CrackerJackz]

One book I picked up a couple of years ago was Robert Polidori's Zones of Exclusion: Pripyat and Chernobyl, it documents though photos how nature is taking back the buildings and towns; and also includes shots from within the control room of the reactor.

http://www.theglobalist.com/photo/Chernobyl/Polido ri.shtml

Yeah, but have the Sword Bushes bloomed yet?

[Infonaut]

Sorry. Someone had to put in an obscure pencil-and-paper RPG reference into this thread, or this wouldn't be Slashdot.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

[coagen]

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE! IT DOES NOT SAY ANIMALS ARE RETURNING TO CHERYNOBYL IT SAYS THEIR SINKING INTO SOME KIND OF RADIATIED BLACK HOLE! "The work suggests, he said, that Chernobyl is a "sink" where animals migrate but rapidly die off. Mousseau suspects that relatively low-level radiation reduces the level of antioxidants in the blood, which can lead to cell damage." Jesus fucking christ, please read the fucking article.

Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

[gurps_npc]

I did read the article. The article is nuetral. It says some scientists claim it is a black hole, but others say they are returning and flourishing. It made NO conclusion at all about which set of scientists were correct.

Honestly, the ones claiming it is flourishing gave a much better argument. Among other things, the black hole people did not do a comparison to normal habitats, nor did they find more deaths. They just found some odd mutations (us non-creationists call that evolution at work), and some animals (not all) were hungry. Wow. some animals living in the wild don't get enough food. Bummer.

Of course, you Shouting Capitals, cursing, post insisting that everyone else had not read the article, despite the clear proof that you read it was far worse of an argument than either of the two groups of scientists made.

Reproduction normal?

[mdsolar]

The article reports that one third of nestlings are malformed. What we have is a fairly natural cut: If the offspring is viable, it will end up being observed as behaving normally, it if is not then it won't be observed since it will be dead from, say, having the wrong shaped beak for its niche. It will be absent from counting surveys, making them biased. Most mutations are harmful so they do not survive. But, so long as less corrupted genetic material can migrate in, you'll get a superfical appearance of normalcy.

The reason for preserving wilderness is to preserve biodiversity which is essential to maintaining a strong ecosystem. This accidental wilderness has many counts against it in that context.

Re:Reproduction normal?

[X0563511]

However at the same time there is a small potential for beneficial mutation to result, and as the successful pool is smaller the chances of such a mutation to propagate are a bit higher.

Re:Reproduction normal?

[suv4x4]

But, so long as less corrupted genetic material can migrate in, you'll get a superfical appearance of normalcy.

You know, if the animals live to leave offspring, it's not superficial appearance of normalcy, it's normalcy, never mind all the curruption going under.

The purpose of an animal, is, after all, precisely this.

As about 1/3 of offspring being malformed, this is far from bad for the wildlife. If 1/2 was, they'd do fine, hell, if 3/4 were, they'd do fine. Even if none of them had mutation, most of the animal offspring would die in infancy for plenty of other reasons (like natural predators).

Re:Reproduction normal?

[Artifakt]

A higher mutation rate doesn't lead to an increased chance of a significant improvement in a species propagating. In sexual species in particular, a higher mutation rate will actually decrease the general evolution rates, either for a species to show a successful adaptation or for it to split off a new species. All the vast complexity of life we see around us results from the mechanisms of heredity developing newer and better ways of reducing copying errors. Even Nucleated cells themselves are an error reduction mechanism - put the genes in the middle behind extra barriers, so fewer chemicals can penetrate to affect the DNA. Sexual reproduction itself is another error reduction mechanism - combine copies from multiple sources and supress (many of) the defective ones. DNA itself won out over RNA as an encoding system because it had a much better copying error rate - and now only a few very primitive organisms remain that use RNA for encoding instead of just as a messenger molecule.
        This is part of the standard theory as taught in real genetics courses to potential professional Biologists. Just about everyone else who thinks they support evolution has been miss-taught in high school biology or 'evolutionary biology for non scientists' type classes. Nothing personal, but it sounds like you got one of those sloppy pop courses.

Re:Reproduction normal?

[X0563511]

No, its just that I have yet not had any life-science classes since HighSchool...

Re:Reproduction normal?

[Intron]

Good point. If 1/2 of the animals are dying in infancy, chances are that half of their predators are also.

Re:Reproduction normal?

[ChrisMaple]

As about 1/3 of offspring being malformed, this is far from bad for the wildlife.

This is observed malformation; there's no mention of internal examinations or spontaneous abortions or eggs that don't hatch. I live on the edge of a forest and I see about 100 birds a day; none of these is visibly malformed.

The article says radiation levels are 10 to 100 times normal background. This range is probably beneficial for humans and most other animals. Living there probably isn't bad from the standpoint of background radiation; but I wouldn't want to eat food grown there or live in a house without a dust filter.

Things are getting better there faster than predicted, and if careful study is done we'll have more data for the theory of hormesis with respect to radiation.

Re:Reproduction normal?

[cartman]

The article reports that one third of nestlings are malformed.

It's worth pointing out that the deformed nestlings were taken from shell cracks of the nuclear reactor itself.

It seems possible that the drastic differences recorded by the 2 researchers could be explained by the fact that one researcher was studying animals breeding on or around the reactor itself, whereas the other researcher was studying animals from the "exclusion zone" which extends for 18 miles in all directions.

Re:Reproduction normal?

[mdsolar]

Souldn't an adaptive mutation do better in a larger pool? Since reproduction is attenuated in the smaller pool, the first propogation is less likely as would be the next few I think.
--
Fission free nuclear power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Re:Reproduction normal?

[mdsolar]

Humm... There is a bit less there for the natural predators I suppose. But I have to disagree with your characterization that the high rate of malformation is fine. Animal reproduction is actually suppose to be pretty high fidelity, this retains adaptive traits. There is a problem with basic function here whereas predation is normal.
--
Get electricity from the Sun at competitive rates: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Re:Reproduction normal?

[mdsolar]

Is this reported elsewhere? It is not clear from the article. In this link http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/papers/moller -et-al-2007-chernobyl-abnormalities.pdf they do not say they are working on the reactor itself, just with in a km of the excusion zone or closer.

Re:Reproduction normal?

[vikstar]

Nothing personal, but it sounds like you got one of those sloppy pop [Biology] courses. Either that or he's drawing from the AI learning tool: Evolutionary Strategy ;)

Re:Reproduction normal?

[pimpimpim]

Living there probably isn't bad from the standpoint of background radiation; but I wouldn't want to eat food grown there or live in a house without a dust filter.

Reality check! I have some friends from that area, living about 50 km up north just along the route of the cloud. Nearby is the city of Gomel that should have been evacuated, but it didn't happen because it would be too difficult as the town was too big (smaller towns did get evacuated). Now you have to realize the economical situation in the country. Monthly salaries are about 200-300 dollar if I remember correctly, and most of it will go to rent, most people are just coping through the month. Buying stuff at a supermarket is getting more reasonable only in the last few years, the main source of food is still the food grown from their small personal gardens at the "Datschas". It has also always been a habit there to eat berries from the forest or collect mushrooms. These habits just did not change, and couldn't. This may sound strange to someone in the west, but there is just no alternative. There is a huge economical difference for you if you get your vegetables from the garden of your family, in trade of some work on their house or whatever, compared to having to buy everything in a supermarket. The money to do that is just not there. Also the stuff in the supermarket just doesn't taste that good. Actually, I should taste myself, but apparently a lot of these things taste much better than the vegetables you can get in the supermarket here in europe, and then of course even more so when compared to the US (sorry, couldn't resist mentioning this) ;)

Also: air filter? Heh. How many people out there have an airco to put their air filter in do you think? How often do these things have to be exchanged, how much does a replacement cost? Also, where do you get it and the replacements in the first place. Every country has its fair share of rich people, and e.g. in the big cities in russia it is easier to find tech goodies than in most towns in europe. But out in the country you really have to go back in time.

I hope to visit there soon, all in all living out there is a different experience, I EXPLICITLY say different, not worse. Also it is interesting to see one of the countries from the 'Axis of evil' from the other side. Just think about why it is on the list: it has a government that actively tries to restrict the rights of the citizens. Now, tell me one place where this doesn't happen! All a point of perspective.

Re:Reproduction normal?

[Artifakt]

I'm genuinely sorry if I came off as condescending or flip with that. All I really want to indicate is that a typical High school course will gloss over many aspects of Evolutionary theory that seem counter-intuitive or paradoxical to cover the basics, and anyone really wanting to comprehend them should expect to need a little college math and a good college textbook aimed at actual Biology majors.
        Maybe I'm overly touchy about this, but I have some real criticisms of some deeper aspects of Evolutionary theory, more as it relates to the origin of life problem than as it relates to specification. I get a fairly good response from most actual Evolutionary scientists in discussing these, although a few scientists have just assumed I'm a classic Creationist or something (Thanks to all the religious controversy, Museums of Creationism, etc., there are a few professionals who won't even read a letter from anyone who doesn't have publications in their particular subfield).
        When I bring the same issues up around the general public, a lot of people who don't know the details of the theory at all tend to criticize me as a 6,000 years - Dinosaurs on the Ark - Creationist Nutcase, for saying the very things people such as Richard Dawkins or Steve Gould strongly agree with and have said in their books and articles. If I'm going to be called a Nutcase, it would at least be nice if it were for my own unorthodox conclusions, and not for the very points where I'm in agreement with 99% plus of established theoreticians.

Detroit

[Anonymous Coward]

A similar thing is happening in Detroit, where re-forestation is taking over the inner city. Check out www.detroitblog.org for pictures of meadows in the middle of the city, and trees growing out of the roofs of abandoned skyscrapers http://www.detroitblog.org/index.php?paged=13

You can also see this in satellite pictures. Look closely around Tiger Stadium and you'll see block after block of green fields with only a few scattered houses.

Nature can adapt to sub divsions as well

[Anonymous Coward]

The long established sub division I live in PA is starting to see some flirtations with top predators like bears. I hear some mountain lions may also be on the prowl.

Our Delaware River that been an industrial wasteland is starting to see some interesting fish migrations again.

Eliminating the poisons and raw sewage of our industrial past is clearly part of the solution, but there is more suburban sprawl here than ever and nature seems to adapt just fine.

When subdivisions have been around as long as rain forests, I suspect we might see new levels of adaptation and speciation. Nature can adapt.

Re:Nature can adapt to sub divsions as well

[Anonymous Coward]

When subdivisions have been around as long as rain forests

Subdivisions only exist because of cheap personal transportation. That is only possible due to cheap oil. Subdivisions will be extinct before you are, unless you're already past retirement age.

Also spotted...

[markov_chain]

Mysterious coal deposits underneath compost piles, a crazy naked couple running around with the animals, and some doddering old man writing frantically into a journal.

Wildlife in the Zone?

[morari]

Us Stalkers have known this for quite some time. Just be sure to throw some nuts and bolts around in front of you!

Not only old...

[Klaus_1250]

but also misleading.

Scientist are divided as to whether or not the animals are flourishing in the highly radioactive environment It is not highly radio-active, it has elevated levels of radiation. In fact, it might actually have a more healthy amount of radiation than non-contaminated areas, as there appears to be a positive link between health and slightly elevated levels of radiation. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article68 5386.ece and http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller12.html for instance.

Re:Not only old...

[O.W.M]

While it's true that in most parts of the exclusion zone, radioactivity is only slightly elevated and even about 100 yards from the reactor #4 sarcophagus it's only about 60 times the normal background radiation but some parts, like the red forrest are still quite highly radioactive. On one of the pictures I took on a quick stop while driving through the red forrest it even read off the scale (at least 2000 microröntgen/h).

Also, keep in mind that these animals don't just live there, everything they eat or drink is also radioactive.

Feel free to move there if you think the amount of radiation is healthy, but I think I'll pass ;-)

Evolution in Action

[Doc Ruby]

Many will die from radiation poisoning.

Many contaminated animals will be sterile. Most of the mutated offspring will fail to survive to birth. Most of the rest will die before becoming fertile age. Most of the rest will be sterile. Most of the rest will repeat the process, leaving mutated genetic lines to expire quickly.

But some tiny fraction might survive mutated but fit to the new environment. They will be horrible beasts unable to survive anywhere else.

Until we contaminate the rest of the planet, which their families will inherit instead of ours.

Re:Evolution in Action

[PetoskeyGuy]

But some tiny fraction might survive mutated but fit to the new environment. They will be horrible beasts unable to survive anywhere else.

That's interesting. I know we've seen evidence that significant evolution can happen over several generations, such as with the russian dog foxes. The radiation is still relatively new to the environment and in a small area. I've always wondered at what point creatures change from being able to tolerate an environment to coming to depend on it. Animals in the Galapagos have adapted to life there, but I don't think there's anything that can ONLY live there.

It must happen at some point though amphibians stopped breathing water and stopped being amphibians. Can the bacteria that evolved to eat nylon which never existed before still eat other things too?

Do you know of any studies on environmental tolerance vs dependency in evolution?

Until we contaminate the rest of the planet, which their families will inherit instead of ours.

The last sentence seems a bit dramatic. Our families will probably be around, just as miserable as the other creatures but still there to inherit things if you call it that. I don't know if we'll just come to depend on lead in the water or minimum dailty doses of radiation, probably something more like having children as early as possible to increase our own survival rates.

I don't think it would be pleasant but people on the whole must be pretty resilient or we wouldn't be having this conversation. :o)

Re:Evolution in Action

[Doc Ruby]

Evolution is the process in which species change through mutation across generations. Mutations that are more fit to reproduce in their environment reproduce more, and remain more plentiful in those new environments. Mutations that are less fit reproduce less, and decrease in numbers in those new environments. The least fit mutations in species leave those species extinct in the new environments.

Fitness is relative. "Tolerance" vs "dependence" is a human projection, a human value judgement of the mere fitness to survive long enough to reproduce, and perhaps further survival to enhance the offspring's chances to reproduce. I don't know of any studies according to that human interpretation of mere survival data, and I don't know in what scientific terms I'd look for one. The relationships described as "tolerance" seem hard to define specifically, even if they include the effects that tend to prevent an organism from reproducing. While dependence does seem more easily defined, some causality between the depended environmental element and the dependent organism, dependence does not seem at all easily mutually excluded from "tolerance". One man's meat is another man's poison.

People are pretty resilient. But we don't have any evidence that the Earth's surface has been as radioactive as is Chernobyl since chordates evolved. And we've got pretty good evidence that the human environment has never been so radioactive. While we've got loads of evidence that so much radiation is extremely toxic to humans, probably enough to make the species extinct. We'd have to be a lot different to survive, especially in competition with other species (such as insects) which are fitter.

Evolution is very gradual, but each generation has to be fit enough to survive to reproduce. When the environment changes more quickly than the slow evolution can allow adapted organisms to be born (or hatched, etc) to reproduce, their species goes extinct with them.

If we nuke more places as big and as badly as we did in Chernobyl, not only will the radiation threaten us, but our collapsed ecosystem will threaten our extinction. We show plenty of signs of ignoring the risk, as we build more nuke plants and weapons. And we show clear signs that we will nuke each other to compete for essential resources, like oil, water, power, or even fetish land (eg for religion or "manifest destiny").

We have to get a lot smarter about the uncaring nature that evolved us. The measures are pretty stark, for all the marbles. Instead, we act like we'll just inherit the Earth no matter what, because we promised ourselves that we would. If cockroaches could talk, they might tell us how wrong we are. If they were dumb enough to tip off the competition who's handing it over to them.

Re:Evolution in Action

[ChrisMaple]

If we nuked the whole planet so that it is as bad as Chernoble was in the days after the explosion, humanity would be in for a hard time. If we nuked the whole planet so that it is like Chernoble is now, we'd likely be better off. The best available evidence today is that radiation levels are about 1/30th the level for optimum individual and first-generation health.

Radiation phobia and poorly thought-out disaster stories do not advance understanding.

Re:Evolution in Action

[Anonymous Coward]

They will be horrible beasts unable to survive anywhere else.

How so?

Re:Evolution in Action

[Doc Ruby]

Because the kind of creature that can thrive enough to propagate a new subspecies in that extreme environment won't find that environment elsewhere. Except perhaps in a very rare case of serendipitous mutation that's good across such extreme ranges of conditions. Which probably won't compete well with its cousins who are adapted only for the local environment, without the "carrying costs" of the unused adaptations.

Obligatory Simpsons

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. Nick: "if it isn't my old friend Mr. McGregg - with a leg for an arm and an arm for a leg"

I guess we know where he's from.

New Chernobyl cash crop...

[Samurai Cat!]

...Tomacco!

Seriously, with the radiation there... it just... might... work!

The return!

[Bromskloss]

I'm wild, I'm alive and I'm back!

Whither the treehuggers

[democrates]

Boars are stomping her corn cobs? Better toughen up lady, any day Monsanto will sue for infringing their holy patents on mutant crops. It's Greenpeace who really confuse me though, they're always on about biodiversity, then we get lots of new lifeforms in Chernobyls valley of the muties and they're cribbing more than ever. No pleasing some people.

So that's why...

[crivens]

So that's why all the videos I've seen of STALKER involve nothing more than shooting wild animals!!!

We could wipe out life.

[Anonymous Coward]

As another poster commented, without fresh DNA coming into the area, the local wildlife would not be as successful. Destroy all the ecosystems of the entire world, add a little nuclear winter and we will have created the worst extinction event the world has ever seen. Saying we haven't wiped out all life at that point would be merely a technicality. At that point, the only thing we could do is thank God there is life in the ocean basically out of our reach.

Re:We could wipe out life.

[suv4x4]

As another poster commented, without fresh DNA coming into the area, the local wildlife would not be as successful. Destroy all the ecosystems of the entire world, add a little nuclear winter and we will have created the worst extinction event the world has ever seen.

I think, however, that this epic tragedy will be offset from all the people who'll gain superpowers as a result.

Re:We could wipe out life.

[Machtyn]

This is Russia we're talking about. Ukraine, actually. And there are a lot of crazy people in the Ukraine.

Re:We could wipe out life.

[suv4x4]

This is Russia we're talking about. Ukraine, actually. And there are a lot of crazy people in the Ukraine.

I can attest to that. And worse still, they are all called Ivan.

Re:We could wipe out life.

[laura_glow]

you mean... that in Soviet Russia superpowers gain you?

Re:We could wipe out life.

[dasunt]

Er, I'm not sure that mankind can compete with nature for worst extinction events.

Take the dino-killer impact. (The Yucatan one, for those who believe in the multiple impact theories.) That released more energy in one event than what would be released if every single nuke on the earth was detonated.

Global nuclear stockpiles: About 5,000 megatons (first google hit).
Yucatan impact: 100,000,000 megatons. (first google hit as well).

Mother nature hates her children somedays. Humanity is a poor second when it comes to the damage nature has done.

Pack of Wolves?

[Vampyre_Dark]

If I was living in a radioctive waste land, and my dogs started to disappear, I'd assume Swamp Thing before a pack of wolves.

Interesting site.

[MaWeiTao]

There's this website where this woman chronicles her motorcycle rides through the area around Chernobyl. The last time I visited the site was several years ago; it appears she's returned since then. It's very fascinating, and without a doubt, eerie. If I remember correctly she mentions having spotted wildlife on a few occassions.

Re:Interesting site.

[Anonymous Coward]

Redundant. Mentioned above. Pointed out as fake and inaccurate- she took a tour and has incorrect facts. Pictures are nice, fuck the rest.

Wildlife?

[rodney dill]

... and I thought they were just gonna send Paris Hilton to jail.

Single Letter Bombs...

[Khyber]

First thing I thought of when you said "And that other 1 letter bomb" was the N-bomb or the F-bomb, then I realized that yes, we do have Neutron bombs and Fission bombs. :)

Re:Single Letter Bombs...

[Anonymous Coward]

wow. interesting. *yawns* thanks for the insights.

Oblig. Eddie Izzard

[sakasune]

"Anything! Anything with a pulse! Or NOT! Pulse OPTIONAL!"
-Dressed to Kill

Shorter Generations

[Alien54]

One must remember the shorter length of reproductive generations that many wild animals have.

For those who have yearly reproduction cycles, we are looking at 21 years, twenty generations for evolution to take place. Those with shorter cycles, such as mice and rats, etc. They probably have evolved enough protection through 50 or more generations that life for them is not so much of an issue.

Creatures with longer cycles, such as humans, would probably have a hard time adapting via evolution. The positive note hear is the relative short half life, but it is still a problem for future generations.

There is a study that indicates that low levels of radiation can have positive effects on health. Not that I would recommend moving to Chernobyl any time soon.

Re:Shorter Generations

[Rei]

Not to mention that, to humans, the ability to maintain and grow populations isn't all we care about. If one agreed with that, they might find Haiti to be a role model :)

If a pair of animals can give birth to twenty young and two make it to breeding age to do the same, the population is holding steady with that 1 in 10 survival rate. For humans in the first world, that would be seen as atrocious.

Re:Shorter Generations

[gcanyon]

I think this misrepresents how evolution works, as does much popular fiction -- yes, I'm looking at you, Michael Crichton!

Evolution works by random mutation and survival of the fittest. There are two important things to recognize here:

1. The mutations are _random_. They do not happen because a species needs them to survive.
2. Survival of the fittest can only prune out what doesn't work. It can never create what will work.

If the mice and rats happened to have individuals in their populations that were more tolerant of the hostile environment around Chernobyl, then those individuals would breed through the population, and yes, the mice and rats would have a shot at success.

Also, if any mouse happened to receive a mutation that helped, their shorter breeding cycle would help that beneficial mutation move through the entire population more quickly.

BUT -- it is inaccurate to imply that "protection" (resistance) will evolve just because it is needed. No amount of "it would be good if this creature had this feature" can make it happen. If the creature needs the feature to survive, then unless the feature is already hiding somewhere in the creature's genome, the creature will die and go extinct.

The proof of this is in the literally millions of extinct species throughout history. If evolving to survive a threat (such as the radiation around Chernobyl) happened just because the creature needed it, we'd be up to our hips in dinosaurs right now.

By the way, popular reporting often gets this wrong as well -- see most articles on antibiotic resistance.

Re:Shorter Generations

[Alien54]

I agree that beneficial mutations would propagate more quickly, and the really awful mutations would also die off quickly.

I would have guessed that this would have been obvious, given a good understanding of evolution. The question is, how many generations does it take to evolve towards better survival in a hostile environment? I would have guessed that you could see some positive change in dozens of generations, thus the way the idea was proposed.

Re:Shorter Generations

[laura_glow]

mod parent up!

this is one of the best short explanations of evolution I have bumped into so far.

RANDOM mutations. So, the way we are? we are that way just because. No explanation. We are how we are by chance.

That's why I get so upset when I read in popular magazines articles that state questions like "Why do men prefer larger breasts on their female partners?" followed by the erroneus answer: "because larger-breasted women were able to take care better of their children in the stone-age".

Wrong.

The correct answer would be: "I'ts a mystery, men that like large-breasted women like that by chance, because of random mutations in their ancestors that made them prefer big boobs instead of small. And that particular preference caused that .

Re:Shorter Generations

[laura_glow]

oops... AND I did hit preview...

the last sentence goes: "And that particular preference caused that -whatever evolutionary consequence it may had-".

Re:Shorter Generations

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it's random mutation, filtered through the crucible of natural selection. The big breasted women (to use your example) must have had something that made them more likely to survive and have lots of children who could do the same. Presuming the big breasted woman mates with a big-breasted-preference man, and that those features are at least partly genetic, you would expect to have big breasted females, and males who prefer big breasts.

Re:Shorter Generations

[Xabraxas]

The correct answer would be: "It's a mystery, men that like large-breasted women like that by chance, because of random mutations in their ancestors that made them prefer big boobs instead of small. And that particular preference caused that .

Wrong. Since when is a preference for big breasts a known genetic value? It seems more like a cultural/societal/psychological phenomena that has little to nothing to do with evolution. If big breasted women were the only kind of women left we could say that evolution caused this through a cultural preference in mating partners but that's about it. There is absolutely no evidence to show that large breasted women were much more likely to survive and reproduce. If that was the case then we would be surrounded by double D's but we're not. Evolution didn't give men a desire for large breasts and it didn't women give those large breasts either. Neither of those traits are reliable predictions to make about any human.

Re:Shorter Generations

[laura_glow]

You are right, it was only an example, maybe poorly chosen. The kind of trait the mistaken documentaries and magazines discuss, is generally the sensations that come with love and infatuation.

Not long ago, in Discovery Channel, it was common to catch a bunch of programs stating things like "Why do we feel love?" and the answer was in the line of: "Because that way "nature" ensures the continuing of the species".

To wich I always think: first comes the misterious love, cause unknown, and then comes the consequence, the spreading of that trait through generations, causing more individuals of the species to have the same trait. randomly and entirely by chance.

Re:Shorter Generations

[gcanyon]

Given that humans are the only mammals where females have enlarged breasts when not needed, I'd say that "big breasted women [are] the only kind of women left."

Do you have evidence that desire for large breasts (and large breasts) are _not_ survival traits?

In any case, sexual selection is a recognized aspect of evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

So it's perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that large breasts are a genetically-determined, sexually selected trait in humans.

Sinks and Cybernetics

[geek2k5]

Read the article and learn a bit about cybernetic theory.

It doesn't really say that they are sinking into some kind of radiated black hole.

The concept of a sink is akin to certain desert lakes that don't have outlets. Water goes in but doesn't leave the way it usually does in wetter climates.

In this context, the area may be absorbing more animals and birds than it produces. They may be entering the area from safe zones but are not reproducing fast enough to sustain the populations once they get to the Cherynobyl area. So a constant resupply is needed.

Nobody here points the strangeness ...

[Anonymous Coward]

One can only wonder why this guy still alive .. unlike animals, he didnt go wandering out of Chernobyl for most of his life...
It reminds me of a documentary (French/German's Arte, but surely stems from BBC's) about Chernobyl ... everyone knows radiation puts anything remotely involved in magnetism is a strange shape (gamma rays); however, while some parts of it where understandably flooded with parasites, some parts actually looked quite good (ie. no parasites) ..
Additionally, in the same documentary, one can witness old (in their 60s or so) persons who were at the site (military & so on) in present time ... didnt looked that adversely impacted by radiation (most of their hairs in place, no apparent sickness, ...)

So, what the fsck really happened here ? Or is my assumption that radiation kills fast (=10years) flawed ?

Re:Nobody here points the strangeness ...

[Goaway]

Your assumption that radiation kills at all is flawed.

At the point where we figured out that radiation is actually dangerous, we realized we did not know how dangerous it was. The only way to find out would be to expose people to radiation until they died, and doing so intentionally is obviously out of the question. So radiation regulations were formulated for the absolute worst case. This was very effective, which meant that there were very few accidential exposures to learn from.

The end result being that we are still working on finding out just how much damage radiation actually does. It is turning out (which should not be surprising, considering we assumed the worst to start out with) that it is less dangerous than what we prepared for. This is merely another example.

12 people died at Columnbine

[p3d0]

I guess by that logic, Columbine wasn't a tragedy either.

Re:12 people died at Columnbine

[MightyYar]

Of course it was a tragedy. It's also a tragedy when 12 people die in Jersey shore Labor Day weekend traffic. It's also a tragedy when 12 soldiers die in a roadside bomb attack.

So if tragedy is what you are using to set policy, then getting people out of cars should be your top priority, since about 50x more Americans are dying in cars than in Iraq.

Re:12 people died at Columnbine

[Mister Whirly]

Call me crazy, but to me transportation seems necessary. War doesn't. The idea behind trasportation is not to kill people. Really can't make the same statement about wars, as killing people IS the main goal.

So according to you, until we eliminate every other type of death, soldiers dying is irrelevant? That is pretty sound logic!

Re:12 people died at Columnbine

[MightyYar]

Way to twist my words. I was wondering why 3500 soldiers over a 4 year period in Iraq were more important in influencing policy then 3500 people in one month dying on the roads.

So now we NEED to drive individual cars on 70MPH highways?

Re:12 people died at Columnbine

[Mister Whirly]

Way to twist my words. I never said a thing about individuals in cars, or speed limits. All I said was transportation is necessary. Besides, I have driven without getting killed for 20 years. Know anyone in a war for 20 years with that kind of luck?? Look at the ratios. How many MILLIONS of people drive everyday without dying?? What are your odds of dying in a car?? Now look at how many soldiers are in Iraq compared to how many die every day. The ratio is much higher. If you want to compare numbers than you have to compare ALL the numbers, not just deaths. Of course more people will die in car accidents, there are WAY more people driving than fighting in Iraq. It has to do with probabilities, not sheer numbers. And if you want to talk about injuries in addition to plain old deaths, estimates are coming back that about 40% or more of our troops will have some sort of mental or physical medical problems. Is 40% of our troops injured an "acceptable" level to you??

Re:12 people died at Columnbine

[MightyYar]

Are you really trying to proceed in an argument with "a higher percentage of soldiers die than people in cars"? Do you really think that ANYONE thinks that a soldier is safer than a car passenger? Good, God, man!

So are you saying that any military action, no matter how noble, should be abandoned if a high enough PERCENTAGE of soldiers is injured? That is ludicrous. On D-Day in World War II there were about 10,000 allied casualties in ONE day (from about 156,000 troops). In the TWO MONTHS preceding D-Day, the allied air forces lost about 12,000 men and over 2000 aircraft.

I have no problem with a good argument over what we should do in Iraq, but yanking people's heart strings is not helpful in ending the conflict. My defense mechanism is to remind you that 3500 troops over 4 years isn't a large number of casualties for an occupation. Honestly, I don't know what people expected when they went to war!

The only thing that is important at this stage is: a. What do we want the state of Iraq to look like when we leave, and b. How do we accomplish this? If your answer to "a" is "civil war and chaos", then that is where our argument lies.

Re:12 people died at Columnbine

[p3d0]

I see what you are getting at. I got it right after I posted my message. You're just saying that the body count is not a good way to measure the tragedy.

Re:12 people died at Columnbine

[Anonymous Coward]

On what do cars run?

Re:12 people died at Columnbine

[Mister Whirly]

The real question A is What did the US cause Iraq to look like now. The answer of course is civil war and chaos. You could argue it would have happened anyways, but that is moot now that the majority of Iraqi citizens view the US as the major contributor to this, (not to mention a percentage of the world view). The answer to B is a actually the $64,000 question. That we wouldn't need to find an answer to if we hadn't caused problem A to begin with...

Iraq was one of the few secular run governments in the midle east. Hell, in the 80s they were our allies against Iran and their theocratic government. Guess who the bigger problem has been all along?? Hint: it isn't Iraq. Guess where the bigger problem is really rearing it's head now?? Hint: it's not Iraq. Guess where all of our troops are tied up in a Vietnam-style civil war?? Hint:it is Iraq. See the problem here?? No one will argue Saddam wasn't a bad guy, but in my opinion the are more problems with the religious fanatics over there than the secular run governments. It's just too bad the war planners didn't have a plan at all for what happens in Iraq after Saddam is removed. Jesus, Rummy even went so far as to say the Iraqi citizens would be greeting us with open arms. And he was in charge of anything why??

Re:12 people died at Columnbine

[MightyYar]

There is no question that the war has been poorly executed, and it is at least a valid opinion that the war was poorly conceived. But arguing who's fault what was, and what might have been is fruitless at this point. Don't get me wrong, it is important to have this discussion because it should influence our behavior in the future.

But in terms of what to do in Iraq right now, it is immaterial to finger-point. The right course of action does not depend on who's fault the mess is. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be blamed - just that our course in Iraq shouldn't be dependent on that. So what do we want Iraq to look like? Should we just leave now? I'd argue that it would be more irresponsible to leave right now then it was to go in the first place. Iraq does not need to be perfect, or even considered a friend or ally - it just needs a stable government... I just don't see that happening if we leave right now (or in the fall). To go in the first place lost the US a lot of good will and international standing - to abandon Iraq would completely devastate our reputation.

Re:12 people died at Columnbine

[Mister Whirly]

Yes, the proverbial rock and a hard place, and the US is square in the middle. I agree that how we proceed from here on out is the most important, but I will continue fingr-pointing until those who have messed it up so badly are removed completely from further decisions (or at the very least will at least admit responsibility for them, and be a little more transparent in the decision making process in the future). I have absolutely ZERO faith in those short-sighted bozos who got us into this war to get us out. I believe their next guesses will be as bad or worse than their original ones. I personally don't ever think a "stable government in Iraq" (or "excuse number 23") was ever the intention for going to war. Iraq had a stable government. A dictatorship, sure but Saddam wasn't ever going to let some Islamic jihadists take any power away from him... And if it was really the human rights issue, we could have looked at any number of countries where civil rights violations occur. (The problem is economic ties with those other countries, where there is only one real business we are interested in Iraq - ancient dinosaur remains.)

Could we have some facts PLEASE!!!

[cdrguru]

Chernobyl isn't the radioactive wasteland that people seem to have the idea it is. Mostly this is a fantasy put over by a lot of raving anti-nuclear folks and a whole lot more uninformed but well-meaning people.

No, the girl on the motorcycle is a hoax and her supposed ideas about how radioactive the ground is are utterly false.

Please take a look at http://www.chernobyllegacy.com/index.php?cat=1 and other sources before being taken in by the fearmongering.

There were a total of 46 people that died as a result of Cherynobyl. Somewhere in the low thousands have been treated for thyroid problems and some may in fact die from cancer due to exposure to the materials that were in the immediate area from the reactor fire. Nobody else is expected to die with a cause attributed to the reactor fire.

People that have taken measuring instruments into the exclusion zone have reported a slightly elevated background radiation and that is all. It is like the difference between living in Italy vs. Norway where Norway gets more cosmic radiation as compared to Italy.

If Chernobyl was anywhere near as bad as people here seem to think it was, Sweden would be a wasteland as well. It is where a lot of the fallout from the fire settled.

Why surpise?

[poszi]

It's been 21 years since the catastrophe. All the short-lived isotopes are long gone. Heck, most of the isotopes were gone after a few weeks. The radiation levels are currently quite low, up to 7 mSv/year in the less contaminated areas of the zone. It's only 2-3 times of the natural background in the USA. There are places, where natural radiation is much higher than that. I'm surprised anybody can be surprised the wildlife is soaring. Human (or rather human activity) is the biggest wildlife killer. Radiation in low levels is completely unimportant.

Bird survival rates...

[Firethorn]

Yes, many bird species will do something like lay three eggs, then the nestlings, at some point, push the others out of the nest to monopolize their parent's attentions(and food).

3 nestlings, strength 1.1, 1.0, .9 .9 gets pushed out first on average, then, some time later either 1.1 or 1.0 gets pushed out, mostly 1.0.

With the higher deformation rate, it'd be more like 1.1, 1.0, and .5, or 1.0, .9, and .7. The weakest still tend to get pushed out, eliminating it from further competition. The strongest still tend to survive. Sure, a .9 might be more likely to survive, but there's still plenty of evolutionary pressure to eliminate them before they're old enough to breed themselves.

*Anything* is better than 0%

[mangu]

the article notes that a third of the nestlings showed abnormalities - I'd have to ask what the normal rate is

For most animals whose habitats have been invaded by humans, the survival rate is 0%. Let me ask you this: how many rattlesnakes are you willing to tolerate in the backyard where your children play? Or wolves, bears, alligators, pumas, or any other predators?

Or what about animals other than predators? How many mice, rats, deers, gazelles, bison, bighorn sheep do you have in your backyard?

I'd say that, unfortunately, for 99% of the Earth's wildlife a 99% rate of lethal cancer is better than the presence of humans...

Re:*Anything* is better than 0%

[Firethorn]

Like I noted - even with the enviromental damage, it's still likely better than living inside/around areas inhabited by humans.

how many rattlesnakes are you willing to tolerate in the backyard where your children play? Or wolves, bears, alligators, pumas, or any other predators?

Don't have any rattlesnakes or alligators, too far north. Have a few garden snakes though. I haven't seen any large predators.

But you're darn right, I'd do my darn best to keep predators away from my kids.

Or what about animals other than predators? How many mice, rats, deers, gazelles, bison, bighorn sheep do you have in your backyard?

I've seen a dozen or so mice, though it's death for them to be found inside my house. I've seen a half dozen deer no a hundred yards away. They've probably been closer, but they tend to wander around at night, and are still skittish as compared to some deer.

I'd say that, unfortunately, for 99% of the Earth's wildlife a 99% rate of lethal cancer is better than the presence of humans...

I'd say more 80%, but you're pretty much right. Many of us are getting smarter about it, but unfortuantly that's mostly restricted to 1st world countries, and most of our diversity is located in 3rd world ones.

Super wolves

[rupert0]

Packs of wolves have eaten two of her dogs.....

That is a pack NUCLEAR POWERED TWO HEADED WOLVES !

Just remove humans

[mi]

In most areas removing humans will cause wild fauna to reappear within a decade or two...

And Chernobyl is in a particularly forested region — even in the year of the disaster wild boars could be observed from a helicopter, according to my father. The pilots were preparing for a hunt on the way back — after dropping him off...

If the humans are gone, the animals will flourish. Their life-span is not long enough for radiation-caused cancers — hunters are far more devastating than any disease.

Come see the 2 headed deer.

[Stopher2475]

Come see the 2 headed deer. This sounds like it would make a great horror movie.

... is full of niggers.

[alfs boner]

lol.

But seriously, your comment sounds like good news. I'd rather see more trees than niggers.

Predators prefer it!

[rholland356]

Predators were quick to move into the Chernobyl area because of the favorable night hunting, where prey animals glow in the dark.

Sure, the price they pay is that they can't bear viable young, but to live free without human intervention? Priceless!

Hey this presents a neat opportunity to save

[vorlich]

The rainforests, whales, polar bears, otters, badgers, foxes, fox hounds, a variety of small animals not including the cockroach but including anything that is furry or appears to be smiling or sad, Chinese Bears, The Panda, The Manatee, liitle old ladies who cycle to church, The North Atlantic fish stocks, er... North Atlantic Norwegian Fishermen and endangered species et al and keep Greenpeacers and Sceptics reasonably happy.
All we need is a number of 'accidental' low level radioactive incidents that contaminate vast areas of land and ocean and scare of all of the humans. I am sure the people Rosie knows (wot can melt steel with fire)will be able to make the necessary arrangements.
Another cool - but very beneficial side effect - will be the sudden abundance of the Tomacco providing a unimaginable source of vitamin c, nicotine and food we don't like but are compelled to eat.
Almost the same as grammar school rice-pudding.

Load of bullshit

[Overly Critical Guy]

What a load of trite, anti-American bullshit. The U.S. didn't get rich off the expenses of other countries, not anymore than every single other country in the fucking world has. It's called economy, nature, survival of the fittest, etc. Since you're almost sure to be a college student, here's a clue--it doesn't make you witty and intellectual to "go against the grain" and bash the top successes of the world.

Hot chick on a bike in Chernobyl

[mcrbids]

Here is a cool site - a hot chix0r on a hot bike drives thru Chernobyl. The pictures are gripping, and not just because the hot chick is in some of them. Check it out.

Wrong

[mdsolar]

We can expect up to 11 billion people coming up. We need to figure out how to make all of them welcome and at the same time, and this is very important, support and sustain the ecosystem. At a billion people, there was no paradise, at 11 billion there will have to be. See http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/scrooge.html for more on this.

Is it bad that the first thing I thought of

[The_mad_linguist]

was the Tiberian Sun series?

Old.....

[IHC Navistar]

OK, who is the idiot who thinks that this is news?!

Wildlife has been observed for a LONG TIME in and around Chernobyl, Pripyat, and immediate areas. This is by NO means new. Not only has it been observed, but is WIDELY documented and has been almost since the disaster.

In the spirit of this article, I would like to announce a discovery:

If you don't refrigerate seafood, it goes bad.

STALKER

[Mantrid42]

I said come in! Don't stand there! I said come in! Don't stand there! I said come in! Don't stand there!

psyonic humans

[drwho]

What about the mutant humans with horrible mutations but also special powers, and the gangs of outlaws trafficing in radioactive materials, without fear because the police and military fear to tred in the radioactive area? A mutant leader with horrible mind control powers who desires absolute power at any expense, and is building the New Soviet Union out of the rubble of Chernobyl?

...huh

[kitsunewarlock]

One of the elderly residents who refused to evacuate the contaminated area says packs of wolves have eaten two of her dogs, and wild boar trample through her cornfield.

This is good news?

I know, it is, it is.

But wild animals may be good, but dupes are not.

Science...

[Mondor]

Really, can't understand, why these scientists don't go to Chernobyl themselves. Instead they are exchanging fantasies and build empty theories. Russian and Ukrainian scientists just drive there and make new fantastic discoveries (like, for example, mushroom that feeds by radiation). People are working there, Chernobyl is still producing electricity for Ukraine. Probably Chernobyl is the wildest place in Europe where no animal is killed by man and no tree is chopped off.

Although some people are driving to Chernobyl to make it scarier. For example, I've seen graffiti on the walls of Chernobyl buildings that shows life and joy. Or of grief and horror. You can see them in this dedicated website: http://26-04-1986.com/

Re:Science...

[Mondor]

Just a fix for my comment: of course international scientific expeditions are visiting Chernobyl and mentioned mushroom was discovered by international team. But some scientists are preferring theory over practice and that's weird for me.

BBC covered over a year ago

[r_jensen11]

Part 1 and part 2

We're screwed

[alexo]

We have a ton of resources on the planet. Supporting more humans with the resources that we have is a reasonably easy problem technologically.

A ton of resources translates to roughly 150 micrograms per person.