Chernobyl wildlife sanctuary?
Wed, Aug 15, 2007
Environmental Graffiti Will be Changing Dramatically Soon. Get a Sneak Preview By Signing Up Here.
Rumours that the Chernobyl nuclear disaster exclusion zone has created a haven for wildlife have been dismissed by scientists.
The area has been sealed off since 1986, when one of the Chernobyl nuclear power station’s reactors exploded in the world’s worst nuclear power station disaster. Traces of radioactive deposits were found in nearly every country in the northern hemisphere. The area was evacuated, and a concrete “sarcophagus” erected around the ruined power station. Gradually, abandoned buildings in the exclusion zone are being enveloped by trees and grasses, and in recent years there has been speculation that the “Zone of Alienation” had become a thriving ecosystem for rare wildlife, allowing species such as wolves to enjoy a resurgence in numbers, safe from human interference.
However, in a new paper, Anders Moller of University Pierre and Marie Curie, France, and Tim Mousseau from the University of South Carolina, US, conclude that the idea that radiation levels were not affecting animals is incorrect:
“Recent conclusions from the UN Chernobyl Forum and reports in the popular media concerning the effects of radiation from Chernobyl has left the impression that the exclusion zone is a thriving ecosystem, filled with an increasing number of rare species,” they wrote. However “species richness, abundance and population density of breeding birds decreased with increasing levels of radiation.”
The number of birds in the most contaminated areas declined by 66% compared with sites that had normal background radiation levels. They also found a decline of more than 50% in the range of species as radiation levels increase.
This study contrasts with a recent report by Robert Baker from the Texas Tech University, who said that the benefits for wildlife from the lack of human activity due to the exclusion zone outweighed the risks of low-level radiation: “It can be said that the world’s worst nuclear power plant disaster is not as destructive to wildlife populations as are normal human activities.”
Professor Mousseau acknowledged Professor Baker’s description: “It is true that the Chernobyl region gives the appearance of a thriving ecosystem because of its protection from other human activities. However, when you do controlled ecological studies, what we see is a very clear signature of negative effects of contamination on diversity and abundance of organisms.”
The long term consequences of the disaster for humans in the area are difficult to assess. A 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum attributed 56 direct deaths to the explosion (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer among the 6.6 million most highly exposed.
You Might Also Like Our Friends' Posts From the Intertubes
“The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else.”
August 15th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
That frog sure gets around. He was seen in the UK back in 2004 at a nursery school.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3534361.stm
June 14th, 2009 at 3:36 am
You enlightened a serious reality, it is a reminder that a nuclear timebomb can occur at a energy plant, if not proplerly maintained.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Photoshopped for purposes of fear mongering. Look at the pixelation of the photo. Poor quality + large pixels = easy to photoshop. That is merely 3 frogs stacked on each other to look as though it were a 3 headed frog. Look closely and you can see all of their hind legs. God environmentalist zealots are gullible :p
“No more pollution! No more coal! No more fossil fuels!” Ok, how about nuclear energy that is far safer than all of the above, the most efficient, and almost no waste(the radioactive waste is recyclable…you can run it back through the plant over and over again until there is nothing left but H2O. But I didn’t suspect the leftists would tell ya that). “No! It’s a time bomb!” Blah blah blah. Like wind turbines won’t fall on people and kill hundreds in suburban areas, like hydro-electric dams haven’t failed on killed thousands…and Nuclear sites have only killed a few people if any at all? Hmm…makes ya wonder. But if the environmentalists had their way, all people would just die off to leave the earth to mother nature.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Yeah… that image is a fake, I saw it in an American newspaper. What I think the other Justin is saying, is that there is no “safe” form of high energy output. The meltdown of reactor building #4 is the only nuclear event to ever reach a 7 on the nuclear disaster scale. It had a meltdown due to is design. The cooling rods actually raised the temperature of the reactor initially. What happened is that the reactor kept getting hotter, so they inserted more cooling rods, and because of the design, raised the temperature even more, causing them to melt, and no more could be inserted. Then, the main steam valve burst, and it all went downhill from there.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:15 am
Moller’s (2005 & 2007) was only talking about one bird species, the 60% reduction refers to a 28% v’s 40% seasonal return rate of Barn Swallow in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and a control area 250 km to the south east. It is not appropriate to extrapolate the breeding success of just Barn Swallows to judge the whole ecosystem there. Chernobyl is now the largest nature reserve in Europe, it has Lynx, Bear, European Bison, Przewalski’s horse and Eagle Ow. The sad fact revealed by the Chernobyl disaster is, humans are more destructive than radiation.