Slashdot Mirror


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."

28 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. Wild animals? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 5, Funny
    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.

    1. Re:Wild animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is /. breasts and a skirt will do.

    2. Re:Wild animals? by Trigun · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    3. Re:Wild animals? by corifornia · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      crap.
    4. Re:Wild animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      >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!

  2. Case in point by packetmon · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  3. Great! by spungo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally a town I can look normal in!

  4. Returning only now? by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Returning only now? by mcmonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

  5. Same as in Bikini by mangu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Same as in Bikini by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Same as in Bikini by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bombing and radiation is better for wildlife than sub divisions. At last a solution for California that we can all accept.
      --
      Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    3. Re:Same as in Bikini by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:Same as in Bikini by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    5. Re:Same as in Bikini by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Same as in Bikini by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  6. Movies by Lovedumplingx · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!!!

  7. Photos by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  8. Lesser of the two evils by Slaimus · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  9. Why is this in HARDWARE? by greginnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
  10. For anyone interested... by Known+Nutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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.

    --
    Beware of the Leopard.
    1. Re:For anyone interested... by Slim+Backwater · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

  11. Hardware? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  12. Re:Isn't this really, really old? by doombringerltx · · Score: 5, Funny
    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
  13. Both are probably true by logicnazi · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

  14. Reproduction normal? by mdsolar · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  15. Re:Insect by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  16. Shorter Generations by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"