Study Finds Humans Are Worse Than Radiation For Chernobyl Animals

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.”

Comments

Re:The Message

[Mr D from 63]

That conjecture has neither scientific basis nor real world evidence. In fact, species with shorter reproduction cycles show sub generational genetic impacts sooner.

Was there any doubt?

[gurps_npc]

Once there was a creature called the Short Nosed Bear.

They weighed on average 900 kilograms - basically 2000 lbs. The largest of them were over 12 feet tall. - more than twice my height. They could reach up and grab things 14 ft above the ground. They could run over 40 mph. On all fours, were still taller than men.

They ate meat. Humans are made of meat.

Humans lived in the same place as the Short Nosed Bear. Humans that didn't have bows and arrows, let alone guns. Just spears. With rock points.

Humans probably didn't intentionally kill the S.N.B. - we just killed all it's food, and let them starve.

Humans: The most terrifying killing machine Earth has ever seen. Nothing is worse than a human.

Re: Ban ALL NUKES NOW

[HiThere]

TMI suffered an endogenous problem, not an external insult. The two cases aren't comparable, but if I were comparing them I'd rate TMI as worse, because it caused problems with far less provocation. And I've no reason to believe that it would have caused less damage if inundated by an earthquake followed by a tsunami.

Re:The Message

[HiThere]

Well, there *is* evidence, but it's hardly conclusive. And how do you rate bacteria?

OTOH, IIRC there's evidence that rats preferentially avoid areas high in radiation, so perhaps the evidence that exists needs to have behavioral changes factored into it (unless you want to consider that a part of how they avoid damage).

Yes, the effects show up sooner. This means they are more quickly eliminated from the genepool, so theoretically it makes sense.

OTOH, when last I visited the topic the evidence was quite weak. So what I'm talking about is science that's probably 40 years old, and wasn't strong then. Is there anything more recent?