Slashdot Mirror


Plants Near Chernobyl Adapt To Contaminated Soil

lbalbalba writes "In April 1986, a nuclear reactor at the Chernobyl power plant in Ukraine exploded and sent radioactive particles flying through the air, infiltrating the surrounding soil. Despite the colossal disaster, some plants in the area seem to have adapted well, flourishing in the contaminated soil."

27 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory... by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    Feed me, Seymour!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Obligatory... by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Funny

      Kind of what I was thinking, but not quite. I was suddenly hearing the song, "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" in my head....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. Wasn't this predicted by ChipMonk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    in "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind"?

    Adapt or die.

    1. Re:Wasn't this predicted by houghi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obviously He has made the plants smart enough to make that selection. Intelligent Design and all, you know?

      (Ok, going to get modded troll for this or burn in hell.)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  3. It's because by ascari · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...they are nuclear plants? [ducks]

    1. Re:It's because by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

      And heavy watering.

      --
      John
  4. Hmmm that'll do... by pookemon · · Score: 5, Funny

    From TFA - "Scientists had to wear masks, goggles and gloves to work in the area"

    Meanwhile the remainder of their body was burnt to a crisp by the radioactivity. Masks, goggles and gloves? This experiment was presumably organised by someone from the Simpsons... (My eyes - the goggles do nothing!)

    --
    dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    1. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably the point is not so much to shield radiation, but to reduce / prevent direct contact, or (worse) ingestion of radioactive material. Depending on conditions & duration of the job, masks, goggles & gloves may just be adequate.

    2. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by pookemon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah - you should probably RTFA - that quote was from a caption of a picture showing the scientists wearing normal clothes, masks, goggles and gloves. None of which would do anything against radioactivity.

      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    3. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by jamesh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Radiation isn't the only problem. Uranium is toxic even without its radioactivity. I suspect that there are a bunch of other byproducts of a reactor explosion that are just as bad.

    4. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, they would do something.

      Primarily they would prevent the accidental ingestion of alpha particle emitters. Shit like polonium like the Russians used on that reporter a few years ago. They're normally harmless, your dead skin cells will stop the alpha particles, but [deity] help you if you ingest them.

      The background radiation levels are easily measurable and it's pretty easy to calculate how long someone should reasonable stay in an area unprotected. I would wager that these scientists actually know something about science, and were mainly concerned with ingesting alpha emitters, not absorbing gamma rays.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    5. Re:Hmmm that'll do... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Probably the point is not so much to shield radiation, but to reduce / prevent direct contact, or (worse) ingestion of radioactive material. Depending on conditions & duration of the job, masks, goggles & gloves may just be adequate.

      Right. The key is to limit exposure to the precise amount where you don't die, but do gain superpowers.

      These scientists know what they're doing.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  5. Great... by santax · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now eat that plant... See what happens. Maybe you get 'immune' maybe you don't :P

  6. Cool, but old news. by dcposch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, evolution is alive and well. A species of bacteria evolved in the early 70s that can digest nylon.

    I think this news is a nice reality check on that annoying but vocal cadre of environmentalists that are always predicting some kind of terrible apocalypse within the next couple of decades. Global cooling, for example. Not to mention a nifty "myth busted" moment for that old Hollywood trope of a post-nuclear wasteland.

    I'm definitely not saying we shouldn't take care of our environment, by the way, and I'm certainly not an AGW denialist. The specific way things are now matters a lot to us fickle and fragile humans. If the sea level rises by another yard, the crabs will just move. The Venetians are the ones that would be screwed.

    I'm just saying that nature is more resilient than people usually imagine.

    1. Re:Cool, but old news. by MrNemesis · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to mention a nifty "myth busted" moment for that old Hollywood trope of a post-nuclear wasteland.

      The explosion at Chernobyl wasn't a nuclear one, it was steam (due to a massive reactor power spike thanks to the skillful removal of pretty much all possible safety procedures in an already sub-optimal reactor design) that blew open the core and scattered radioactive material over the landscape and into the atmosphere thanks to the lack of a containment vessel. The Hollywood trope of the post-nuclear landscape typically involves the detonation of several hundred megatons of nuclear bombs and, as near as we can tell, is pretty accurate; Chernobyl isn't really comparable to a nuke in either the degree of the explosion or in the amount of radioactive fallout. /nitpick

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    2. Re:Cool, but old news. by Vintermann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My understanding was that the point of this article was that this was not evolution, or at most an evolutionary switch-on of a feature that evolved long ago.

      When plants reach for the light, it's not because they are evolving into a new organism on the spot. Rather, they have long ago evolved to dynamically adapt to lighting conditions. What TFA is proposing is that plants dynamically adapt to ionizing radiation as well, and they have had that capability for some time, it's just that we haven't been in a position to observe it.

      As to the rest of your comment: If you think "environmentalists are always predicting some kind of terrible apocalypse withing the next couple of decades" and cite "global cooling" as an example - maybe you're not an AGW denialist, but you have apparently picked up some of their rhetoric style.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  7. Day Of The Triffids! by IonOtter · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientist: Wow! They're thriving!

    Plant: (Yeah, that's right b*tch. You better believe it.)

    *weeks pass*

    Plant: (Eat me. Go on, you know you want to? Look at my lovely leaves, my beautiful drupes. I'm tasty. You KNOW I am. Eat me, human.)

    Scientist: Hmmmm...I wonder...

    Plant: (That's right, baby. Oh yesssss...verrry good.)

    --
    [End Of Line]
  8. Re:Mother nature by Antisyzygy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Key point : Pollution affects Humans too. If you are interested in there being human beings around in the future you need to either, A) Get us off planet to other colonies or B) preserve the "colony" we have. There may be some other creature that evolves with our capacity for abstraction and application of abstraction (i.e. engineering) on Earth. However if you believe that intelligence like ours is rare in the Universe and also believe it is worthwhile, then we need to handle Earth a little better or start funding Nasa with our cigarette and booze money. Budget Comparison to Consumer Expenditures and SpaceReview.

    --
    That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  9. You are mistaken by pikine · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read their method.

    They first observe that plants start to spontaneously grow again in contamination sites despite the high radioactivity. Then they brought in seeds from uncontaminated origin. One batch goes to the contamination site, and another batch (the controlled group) goes to a decontaminated area near the site. Seeds grow fine in both batches, showing that seeds from uncontaminated origin is able to survive the radioactivity in the very first generation. The study is about the mechanism how plants naturally resist radioactivity. No evolution is taking place here.

    --
    I once had a signature.
  10. The kids aren't all right. by SoupIsGood+Food · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Coupl'a things -

    1) Chernobyl is not over, and not contained. The "sarcophagus" was temporary at best, is crumbling now, and it's permanent replacement has been beset by budgetary, engineering and political issues that seem irresolvable.

    2) Apart from 6' trout and 10' catfish, wildlife around Chernobyl and Pripyat is absolutely not doing well. Excepting a few migratory songbirds, the place is eerily silent.

    3) But it's OK, because a few plant species turn out to be radiation-tolerant?

    No, not OK. I'm not against nuclear power wholesale, but maybe we should be taking a long, hard look at pebble-bed, 4S and thorium reactors?

    1. Re:The kids aren't all right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I hate to tell you but 10' catfish aren't that uncommon. Go check the noodling sites sometime and you'll find plenty that are over 8 foot long in populated areas where rednecks eat catfish and a fair number of well documented 10 footers too. Put those same catfish in areas where the rednecks would be afraid to eat them or even use the waterways for transport and guess what you'd find? These things would thrive in the right conditions. Even 6 foot trout are known outside of radioactively contaminated areas.

      People are living and farming within 20 miles of the plant and there is a known substantial population of elk, deer, wolf, fox and others in the so-called dead zone and they've been there for years. I'm not saying it's safe or even that it's tolerable but it is happening.

      You might know enough to sound a little learned when it comes to reactors but it's nothing that anyone else here couldn't have figured out for themselves in 10 minutes using Google. What you clearly don't know about is the fact that you're dead wrong about Prypiat and it's current ecosystem.

    2. Re:The kids aren't all right. by Caption+Wierd · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh please. I am a radiation expert in real life. I have been to Chernobyl. It is no more "eerily silent" there than it is in the non-contaminated areas. The surrounding area is mostly farmland and was cleared many years ago. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the plants and animals are just not as sensitive to radiation as the movies and sci fi shows suggest. That plus the fact that most of the isotopes released (iodine-131 for example) have long decayed away. Humans are more sensitive to the effects of radiation than most other creatures. When we protect humans we end up protecting the environment. That said, even though I full expect the plants to grow healthy in the downwind zone, I would not eat them for fear of further concentrating any remaining contamination they contain and raising my risk of cancer. But I don't smoke, either, for similar reasons.

  11. Re:Of course life adapts. by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "And Humans will adapt by dying out."

    The many survivors of atomic testing and nuclear attack suggest otherwise.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  12. No predator(s)? by An+anonymous+Frank · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Could it be that whatever fauna that survived, adapted and/or now thrives might do so under conditions perhaps harsher due to radiation, yet plausibly improved by a potentially reduced presence of any predator species, whom may not have fared as well, or may have been displaced?

  13. The plants are thriving by Provocateur · · Score: 4, Funny

    They were all active that day, talking about the weather, gossiping, and walking around. And right before the scientists and researchers drove in to the site, one of the plants yelled "CAR!" and they all stood still.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  14. Re:Plant vs. Human evolution by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There aren't many natural sources of substantial radiation, unless you go digging up and concentrating the relevant elements or go far enough back in earth's history that plants hadn't been invented yet. There is virtually no call for the adaptation of radiation resistance, outside of a few man made regions.

    However, as it happens, the biochemical adaptations required to survive severe dessication or extreme heat(which, like radiation, pretty much go all bull-in-a-china-shop on your genome and metabolically important molecules) happen to, in a number of cases, be pretty useful in radiation resistance as well. Bacteria like d. radiodurans, t. gammatolerans, and organisms like tardigrades are extremely radiation resistant; but as a side effect of their adaptations to heat and dessication.

    Given the survival value, particularly for seeds, of being able to survive hard times and then germinate, or aggressively seize territory(and light) left open by forest fires, it wouldn't be a total surprise if plants had picked up a few adaptations in the same vein...

  15. Re:Of course life adapts. by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "What does not kill me, makes me stronger."

    "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection"

    Nietzsche, Darwin, what's the difference.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.