Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study Finds Humans Are Worse Than Radiation For Chernobyl Animals

Posted by samzenpus on from the least-of-two-evils dept.

derekmead writes: A study published today in Current Biology shows that wildlife in the Chernobyl exclusion zone is actually more abundant than it was before the disaster. According to the authors, led by Portsmouth University professor of environmental science Jim Smith, the recovery is due to the removal of the single biggest pressure on wildlife—humans. "The wildlife at Chernobyl is very likely better than it was before the accident, not because radiation is good for animals, but because human occupation is much worse,” Portsmouth University professor of environmental science Jim Smith says. “We were trying to emphasize that this study is a remarkable illustration of an obvious, but important message,” he said. “It is ordinary human habitation and use (farming, forestry, hunting) of land which does most ecological damage.”

2 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. It's not the only example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bikini atoll, devastated by a nuclear blast is in great shape, thanks mainly to the lack of people :
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3339485/Marine-life-flourishes-at-Bikini-Atoll-test-site.html
    And certainly in much better conditions compared to Indonesia or the Philippines reefs with no radiation and huge populations.

    Another example is the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, apparently with great wildlife. Again, because of the lack of
    people.

    In the rest of the world, while the human population has doubled from 3.5 B to 7B in only 40years, the wildlife (both marine and non) has halved :
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26290-worlds-wildlife-population-halved-in-just-40-years.html
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-16/half-marine-life-lost-in-40-years/6779912

    Even the relatively protected Great Barrier Reef has halved its cover in 27 years :
    http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Full-PNAS-paper-for-publication.pdf

  2. Re:incomplete sentence... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    The american indians managed the land and it's resources just fine, It's the assholes from europe that wiped out most everything because of stupidity.

    They didn't manage the land and its resources. They lived a nomadic lifestyle. Once they'd depleted an area of its resources, they simply picked up everything and moved somewhere else. This had the effect of distributing their environmental impact.

    That only works so long as population density is very low. Europeans arrived with a much higher population density. They would've had the same detrimental effect on the North American environment even if they'd lived as the native Americans did.