Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Forests Around Chernobyl Aren't Decaying Properly

Posted by Soulskill on from the this-is-what-happens-when-forests-aren't-educated-properly dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Smithsonian Magazine has an article about one of the non-obvious effects of the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown: dead organisms are not decomposing correctly. 'According to a new study (abstract) published in Oecologia, decomposers—organisms such as microbes, fungi and some types of insects that drive the process of decay—have also suffered from the contamination. These creatures are responsible for an essential component of any ecosystem: recycling organic matter back into the soil. Issues with such a basic-level process, the authors of the study think, could have compounding effects for the entire ecosystem.' The scientists took bags of fallen leaves to various areas around Chernobyl and found that locations with more radiation caused the leaves to retain more than half of their original weight after almost a year. They're now beginning to worry that almost three decades of dead brush buildup is contributing to the area's fire risk, and a large fire could distribute radioactive material beyond Chernobyl's exclusion zone."

47 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Zombie trees? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    SF authors were right!

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Zombie trees? by Frnknstn · · Score: 2

      Illustrated example:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
  2. Solution... by mark_osmd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Go to other areas of Europe and Russia that have normal forest breakdown, grab some soil and dead leaves and spread them in select locations around Chernobyl. If the fungi and mold was damaged back when the radiation was really high it can be reseeded now that it's lower

    1. Re:Solution... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would have thought that the fact that the experiments with leaves brought there from elsewhere decaying slower demonstrate that merely bringing foreign organisms (the collected leaves are not sterile, of course) is not going to help.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They're not sterile but it's not merely one organism that attaches early to the leaf that is responsible for the decay. It's a collection of different organisms that each take their share of the organic matter for their own needs. Hence the note of various fungi and insects. Notably, a large part of plant root systems are often heavily intertwined with fungi which either directly or indirectly take part in the breakdown of organic matter around the plants. Hence, just dumping soil onto a new area might not be enough.

      To me the more interesting aspect is just how the plants themselves are fairing as one of the major supposed risks of nuclear fallout is precisely the way it results in uptake of dangerous radioactive material into food. But if the root system and fungi system underground have been largely buffered because the surface fungi/insects die before being able to do the necessary processing...then the plants themselves may be perfectly safe to consume (properly rinsed off, of course) but fail to restore themselves which would quickly turn the area into a desert once a fire occurred.

      So, for all the risks of fallout, perhaps Planet of the Apes (the original one) had it right.

    3. Re:Solution... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Yea, the radiations slowing it down, sure. But literally crop dust the area with microbes once a year and I bet you'll see a hell of a difference.

    4. Re:Solution... by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps you should reference a map first. Chernobyl is one of the booby prizes the EU gets to keep, along with the Ukraine debt and the tens of thousands of neo-nazis. Of course as an 'applying' member of the EU Ukraine will no longer be able to do a middle man attack on the gas supplies between Russia and the EU when it comes to extorting reduced gas prices (that application might drag on quite a bit, seriously who Europe would want tens of thousands of neo-nazis, just the right mix to set of mass conflict with European Muslims and Jews)

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Solution... by jafac · · Score: 4, Funny

      hey, you, paid Russian web-propaganda dude! You're on the wrong thread. This is the thread for the paid pro-Nuclear web propaganda team. The Ukraine thread is about a page and a half down.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    6. Re:Solution... by ToddInSF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lets say there is a fire, the radioactive, dead plants burn, some of the radiation is diluted from the area, over time wouldn't that process cause plant and microbial life to eventually replenish itself in the area ?

      Seems to me the natural process of living systems is to do exactly this, get the things that hamper living systems dilute enough to re-establish living systems...

  3. Business opportunity by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sounds like the perfect place to sell burial plots to the rich. Their corpses can remain intact for thousands of years. And the fear of radiation poisoning will keep grave robbers away. As a bonus, it will save more land from being developed into wasted space. And this land that can't be used by the living will become useful as well. Sounds like a win-win to me.

    1. Re:Business opportunity by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is a trade off, lead lined suits to visit the grave but the flowers you leave last so much longer!

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    2. Re:Business opportunity by relisher · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure, let's put dead bodies into highly radioactive zones and not expect people to have a zombie scare.

    3. Re:Business opportunity by ultranova · · Score: 2

      It's a great business opportunity. You can sell that land at a high price to gun nuts.

      And then the gun nuts can combine work and play by selling tickets for zombie banker safaris.

      "Honey? That guy who repossessed our home 20 years ago is a Chernobyl zombie now. I know where we're vacationing this year."

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  4. Re: Controlled fires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think they meant the smoke alone from the fire would cause radiation to spread.

  5. Fire = Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fire "risk" is natures form of healing. By re-distributing the radiation the area can heal.

    We humans take issue with the idea of the radiation spreading outside "the zone" but nature doesn't.

    1. Re:Fire = Good by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because nature has shit loads of fusion reactors all over the planet that go critical all the time.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Fire = Good by Ferrofluid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Chernobyl was a fission plant. Mankind has yet to create a viable fusion power plant. And even if we were able to make a fusion plant, it would be impossible for a fusion reactor to "go critical" since "criticality" is not even a concept applicable to fusion reactions.

    3. Re:Fire = Good by jc42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because nature has shit loads of fusion reactors all over the planet that go critical all the time.

      Actually, that's not all that far off from reality. Except that, in our solar system, nature has only one fusion reactor, which went critical roughly 4.5 billion years ago. Nature has been powered by the output of that one runaway fusion reactors ever since then. And life here has had to handle the fact that our power supply is available only about half of each day, so each species needs to develop ways of surviving a total failure of the power plant every day.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    4. Re:Fire = Good by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      Chernobyl was a fission plant, but nature does have fusion reactors reacting all over the universe all the time,

      And quite a lot of them actually exploded. ;-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Fire = Good by macpacheco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah go right ahead and conflate the most wildly unsafe nuclear power plant in the world with all of the others with a secondary containment building. With proper safe design.
      Go ahead and spread all of your anti nuclear paranoia non sense.
      While we are at it, why don't we push the disapearance of Air Malasia Flight 370 as an excuse to ground all airliners, eventually leading to shuting down the whole airline industry for good. It's the kind of wisdom the anti nuclear wise man are proposing.

    6. Re:Fire = Good by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Wait, are you saying we're all inundated by radiation from nuclear fusion? How can we stop this atrocity! We must protect ourselves from the radiation of that nuclear fusion - think of the children!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:Fire = Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, yes. We know of 16 natural fission reactors on Earth, that mother nature ran for hundreds of thousands of years.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

    8. Re:Fire = Good by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Funny

      "we're all inundated by radiation from nuclear fusion? How can we stop this atrocity! "

      Move to Seattle.

    9. Re:Fire = Good by x0ra · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nature even had fission reactor, on earth, operating for a few hundred thousand years, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

    10. Re:Fire = Good by quantaman · · Score: 4, Funny

      The fire "risk" is natures form of healing. By re-distributing the radiation the area can heal.

      We humans take issue with the idea of the radiation spreading outside "the zone" but nature doesn't.

      But in what patterns does it get redistributed? Does it get diluted down to homeopathic levels thus curing everyone in the Ukraine of cancer, or does it get redistributed in concentrated form, creating pockets of high radiation outside the exclusion zone causing Ukrainians to get superpowers and kick the Russians out of Crimea.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    11. Re:Fire = Good by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or how about we get some perspective. Chernobyl nearly bankrupted the USSR, and the cost of Fukushima is looking like it will be in the range of hundreds of billions of Euros/USD. The loss of one airliner doesn't really compare. In fact all their air accidents in the history of the world don't really compare.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Fire = Good by macpacheco · · Score: 2

      How much 9/11 losses caused on the American economy ?
      Studies place the price tag at 2 trillion USD !
      Again, then why are we letting the airlines continue to operate ?
      Can we honestly guarantee a 9/11 style attack will never, ever happen again ?

      A Chernobyl style accident is essentially impossible to happen again. It wasn't the first stupid idea coming from Russia, the stupidity continues right now (in other areas). Nukes without secondary containment were a stupid idea only the Russians would be stupid enough to pursue. And the other problems with that reactor were the result of it being a knockoff from the USA design before it was fixed.

      The Tsunami reconstruction is projected to cost US$ 300 billion. Let's maintain that number for perspective.

      There are credible, rational, facts based studies that show tens of millions of people would have died if we had no nuclear power stations using coal instead.
      Wanna put a price tag to those lifes ?
      Those same studies show that nuclear is the safest energy source per GWh produced in the USA, and France.
      I was educated with the thinking that instead of looking for the worse possible way of doing something, instead we learn what to do from the BEST and what not to do from the WORSE.

    13. Re:Fire = Good by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      How much 9/11 losses caused on the American economy ?
      Studies place the price tag at 2 trillion USD !

      Very little of that was directly due to the aircraft though, most of it was self-inflicted damage due to the way the US responded.

      Nukes without secondary containment were a stupid idea only the Russians would be stupid enough to pursue.

      Actually the root cause was exactly the same in the case of both Chernobyl and Fukushima, and most other commercial nuclear accidents. It's not stupidity per-se, it's that safety is expensive. The USSR was building reactors on the cheap, and TEPCO was running them on the cheap. It's not really stupidity, it's simply the reality of trying to run something that is expensive to make safe in an environment where money is a limited resource.

      The Tsunami reconstruction is projected to cost US$ 300 billion. Let's maintain that number for perspective.

      Good point, Fukushima on its own just about doubled the cost of the whole event.

      There are credible, rational, facts based studies that show tens of millions of people would have died if we had no nuclear power stations using coal instead.

      If only there was some other way to generate electricity other than coal and gas. If only our modern coal plants weren't just as bad as third world ones built in the 50s for emissions. Seriously, can't you see the irony of on the one hand suggesting that we should have modern nuclear plants with the latest safety features but insisting that the only alternative is ancient coal power stations with no carbon capture or modern filtering?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Fire = Good by dbIII · · Score: 2

      That plant won a safety award the year before the accident so was not "the most wildly unsafe nuclear power plant in the world".
      Some of the "nuclear paranoia" had the positive effect of a large number of improvements to places that were potentially even worse. We didn't completely stop using nuclear reactors for civilian purposes in 1986 did we? I think you really are overstating the "nuclear paranoia" to a ridiculous point.

    15. Re: Fire = Good by loufoque · · Score: 2

      The nuclear paranoia of Fukushima led Germany to stop using nuclear power and switch to coal.
      The French government has announced highest levels of pollution this week all over France, guess what's the cause: German coal power plants.

    16. Re:Fire = Good by bluegutang · · Score: 2

      Does it get diluted down to homeopathic levels thus curing everyone in the Ukraine of cancer,

      This is ironic, because there is actually a serious scientific hypothesis that small doses of radioactivity are good for you. (In contrast to all other "homeopathic" ideas which are idiocy and/or fraud)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

    17. Re:Fire = Good by macpacheco · · Score: 3, Informative

      Chernobyl had:
          No secondary containment structure
          A few serious safety risks, which combined with the lack of a secondary containment really made it an accident waiting to happen
      Both those bad features had been known for over a decade as a huge safety risk. Only the USSR would dare build a reactor without secondary containment. That is indisputable, and should Chernobyl had a secondary containment, it would have been an accident a little worse than Three Mile Island

      Fukushima was an old Gen II reactor. About as old as the oldest operating reactors in the world. That accident would have been impossible in a modern AP1000 since the reactor has passive cooling capabilities, able to go for days without any external power. Besides they had been warned both that its Tsunami defenses were inadequate and that they shouldn't put all diesel generators in the basement.

      In both cases it's like trying to use a safety problem of a first generation 737 as a reason not to fly 787's or using a safety problem on a A300 as a reason not to fly A380s.

      New nuclear isn't cheap but isn't expensive either. China, India and South Korea are building new reactors on a cost effective basis. There are cheaper solutions that are even safer, with the real problem being that vested nuclear suppliers don't want to invest on something that will give them less revenue.

      Nuclear upfront investment is expensive, but nuclear reactors are far cheaper to operate after built even than coal, like 1/3rd the cost.

      Even natural gas exploration and distribution kills people every year. Hundreds worldwide. It's just that those deaths are one or two here, one or two there, plus there's no sensationalism about industrial accidents that kill a few people.

      Over the last 10 years there was a single nuclear related death in the USA, a uranium mining accident. And if you go back 50 years, there are very few deaths related to nuclear stuff.

      France actually produces less total electricity from nuclear than the USA, but its over 75% of their total electricity, also with just a handful of deaths over a long period.

      Should just the diesel generators for Fukushima been fine after the Tsunami, it would have been an example of how resilient nuclear can be in the face of extreme accidents.

    18. Re:Fire = Good by macpacheco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't agree with your quoted cost for Fukushima cleanup.
      The pattern so far has been of wildly inflated and some fully made up numbers about Fukushima, so I don't agree with any predictions until they actually materialize.

      >Very little of that was directly due to the aircraft though, most of it was self-inflicted damage due to the way the US responded.
      The same argument can be made that the Fukushima exclusion zone is much larger than necessary and that nuclear power plant remediation procedures are far more costly than necessary. Should we accept that the LNT model is wrong, the real procedures that will have to be undertaken would be reduced by about 75%.

      The reality is if the LNT model were right, there would have been about a hundred times more cancers from Chernobyl than actually happened.
      Remember the prediction of millions of cancer deaths from Chernobyl ?
      Countries no longer under the influence of Russia that were very close to Chernobyl report very little cancers compared to the dire predictions. So the massive cover up doesn't quite pan out.
      And there is people living back in the Chernobyl exclusion area, in defiance of the military blockade, people drinking radioactive water.
      If the LNT model were right, they would have cancers by the buckets, which isn't actually happening.
      The reality is the only real serious risk in both Chernobyl and Fukushima are Thyroid cancer from radioactive iodine, which has an 8 day half life, so 99.99% is gone in 80 days (10 half lives means 99.99% is gone).
      Our bodies deal with radiation all the time. We have radioactive Potassium-40 and Carbon-14 in our bodies decaying all the time. We breathe radioactive Radon all the time, cause it seeps from Thorium decay inside the earth.
      We can avoid fire in order not to get burned.
      We can't avoid radiation, it's everywhere.

      Nuclear is the safest energy source out there, and it doesn't have to be expensive, if we stop with the sensationalism and approach it with responsibility and sobriety.

  6. I wouldn't worry so much about Chernobyl... by cosmin_c · · Score: 2

    ...as I'm worrying right now about Fukushima. At least in Ukraine they aren't pumping sea water to cool it, which afterwards gets dumped in the ocean for further spread via currents - http://borderlessnewsandviews....

    1. Re: I wouldn't worry so much about Chernobyl... by cosmin_c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't wish radioactive particles to "be gone". They do have a half-life, but for example the Ce-137 that's depicted in my link has a half-life of ~30 years. And it's spewed continuously into the ocean and spread around the world. The Bikini Atoll experiments resulted in sea-life in general being hundreds of times more radioactive than the norm because those elements, and guess where that radioactivity ended up - on people's tables. Saying it's safe to swim around the sunken ships is interesting to say the least. My point is that radioactive particles don't just "go away" and their generation can overwhelm the moderating capabilities (i.e. dilution) of the sea water. And it isn't reasonable to think that having radioactive material being spewed into the ocean like that is all-right.

  7. Re: Controlled fires by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think they meant the smoke alone from the fire would cause radiation to spread.

    Oh come on, get a half-life already!

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  8. Probably bad reporting and hyped abstract by tp1024 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I won't believe a word about this, unless the full study is available for checking and has been independently reproduced. And when I write "available" I don't mean "you can purchase this paper for the wee lil' sum of 40 Euros".

    Sorry, but just about any time I actually read the papers that articles on slashdot or anywhere else are about, the result is typically quite different in the actual paper or the methods employed have obvious holes like insufficient data. The more politically relevant the topic, the worse it gets. Hence, I won't take a word of this seriously.

    1. Re:Probably bad reporting and hyped abstract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Look, I don't want to ruin your cynical train, but the study looks plausible, as in "common sense" plausible. Even if it, of course, needs to be double-checked, there is no reason to "disbelieve" it without giving it the attention it deserves.

      What is triggering your "disbelief" alert here? Radioactive material enter the ecosystem via the trees. Trees die, their leaves fall every autumn. Radioactive material goes back to the ground, causes problem with fauna and fungi. Living organisms are known to be able to cope with radioactivity, but at the price of some energy expense to fight mutations (in higher organisms, tumors), which mean they can't spend as much energy as usual to do what they usually do, that is decompose organic matter and generate nutrients back into the cycle of life.

      And of course, if a fire starts, all the radioactive material contained into flammable materials (leaves and tree remnants) will soar into the sky, since the decay of the said flammable materials take longer than usual... This again seems plausible.

    2. Re:Probably bad reporting and hyped abstract by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Informative

      When the Soviets contaminated over 800 square kilometers with high levels of Strontium 90 in their first big nuclear disaster, post Lysenko geneticists and biologists studied the effects of this radiation on the entire biocoenosis. Z. A. Medvedev wrote about the results of this work in his book, Nuclear Disaster in the Urals (ch.8):

      The given contamination levels (1.8-3.4 millicuries per square meter) were highly destructive for soil animals. Predatory beetles suffered least; their numbers in the contaminated area were reduced to only 66 percent of the figure in the control area. Non-predatory beetles, beetle larvae, and other insects that feed on plants (phytophaga) suffered the most; their numbers fell to 56 percent of those in the control area. Soil animals that feed on organic products in the soil (where the highest level of strontium concentration was found)—the saprophages—died out almost completely; their numbers fell to 1 percent of the control group. Taxonomically, the groups studied were Aranea, Mollusca, Lithoblidae, Geophilidae, Lumbricidae, and Diplopoda.

      So small critters in the soil that eat leaves are highly sensitive to radioactive contamination. This has been known for a long time now; at least 40 years. Your skepticism is misplaced; that Chernobyl should have caused a big die-out among the creatures the decompose detritus is entirely predictable. Wait a few years and you'll get to read about the same thing around Fukushima, only there we'll learn about the effects on marine life as well.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:Probably bad reporting and hyped abstract by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For Fukushima you're talking about a far smaller dose.

      That's not the case. The total radiation released by Fukushima Daiichi is far smaller than Mayak or Chernobyl, but there are concentrations of radiation (from Cs-137 and Cs-134) as high as 30M Bq/m2 in the several kilometers of land Northwest of Fukushima Daiichi. This is equivalent 0.8 millicuries which puts it into the ballpark of the Urals EURT areas of 1.8-3.4 millicuries that were studied by the Soviets; high enough to measurably effect the life cycle of saprophage.

      Only one problem, during the terrorist attack the entire building was destroyed by a volcano.

      The land around Fukushima Daiichi does not fit your terrorist+volcano analogy. The land and around the plant is foothills and the water did not get far inland. The plant itself was build only after the site had been graded to within ~10m of sea level (which is probably the single biggest mistake implicated in the whole event.) So the surface fallout may be studied just fine.

      The sea around Fukushima Daiichi may also be meaningfully studied despite the tsunami. One need only establish control areas that are similar to the Fukushima Daiichi area but well away; kilometers or tens of kilometers north and south of the plant and relatively free of radioactive contaminants. Post tsunami recovery of organisms may then be studied and comparisons between Fukushima Daiichi and these control areas can be made.

      FYI: this work has been started and is ongoing. Unlike the Soviet case we won't have to wait decades for the cover-up to finally fail and the results to appear, either. Japanese and Western researchers are eager to publish about Fukushima Daiichi.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  9. Re:Re:Solution by MatthiasF · · Score: 3

    "The results were telling. In the areas with no radiation, 70 to 90 percent of the leaves were gone after a year. But in places where more radiation was present, the leaves retained around 60 percent of their original weight."

    Areas with no radiation presently showed decomposition (70-90% reduction in weight).

    Areas with radiation presently showed decomposition (40% reduction in weight).

    So, yes, it seems like it would help. A 40% reduction is better than 0%.

  10. Re:backwards day? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

    Yes you miss something.
    More radiation: less living microbes. Hence less decay.
    That was a no brainer ... I don't really know what you miss, though.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  11. Re:Isn't decomposition recent... ? by LF11 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Incorrect. Microbes came (long!) before plants, include microbes capable of breaking down each other.

    As I understand it, coal essentially came from peat bogs, where decomposition is largely halted. Outside of those peat bogs, decomposition would have run apace.

  12. The solution to pollution is dilution. by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    And it isn't reasonable to think that having radioactive material being spewed into the ocean like that is all-right.

    Nobody said it was "all-right" or "safe", the OP said it was "safer" and AFAIK common-sense plus all the evidence from the various Pacific nuke tests supports that claim. Survival is about risk minimization, no activity is totally safe, there is no efficient way to safely dispose of nuclear waste, especially when it has already escaped into the environment, better to help wash it into the ocean than try to keep it on the beach.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  13. Re:If no decay, why a fire risk? by Strider- · · Score: 2

    The place is isolated.... what is the ignition source; if there is no heat produced by decay of materials?

    Every so often, especially in certain times of a year, you get these massive natural electrical discharges called "lightning" that does quite a good job of starting forest fires.

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  14. no, idiot. sunlight is radiation. Heard of sunburn by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Speaking of "no, idiot", sunlight IS radiation.
    As anyone who has ever had a sunburn knows, it's damaging radiation. Quite a bit more damaging than any radiation anyone has ever received from. US nuclear power plant, in fact.

  15. Dead Zone by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    This is what Human hubris looks like.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.