Sign up for an invite
Chernobyl wildlife sanctuary?
Written by Maryking 
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.
License:
Attribution-Share Alike 
Related Posts
Popular in Conservation
Comments
Justin Allison (not verified) says:
Sep 1st, 2009 at 10pm
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.
Justin (not verified) says:
Jul 10th, 2009 at 6pm
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.
rob robertson (not verified) says:
Jun 14th, 2009 at 3am
You enlightened a serious reality, it is a reminder that a nuclear timebomb can occur at a energy plant, if not proplerly maintained.
David (not verified) says:
Sep 25th, 2009 at 3am
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.
Anton says:
Aug 15th, 2007 at 4pm
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
Glenn Beard (not verified) says:
In order to really calculate the effects of radiation on the species, you would have to know the insect and bird diversity and count before the Chernobyl accident. The authors of the articles talked about a decline compared with other sites, but the question is how comparable those sites were with the Chernobyl area. If they are using areas that still have humans, that would affect the results. Some species, birds like pigeons in particular, do well with humans, and can actually increase in number. If you are comparing a true wilderness area that was never heavily settled by humans with Chernobyl, which has only been reverting to wilderness for the last 25 years, might account for the species diversity. Depending on which sites you use for comparison can affect the results.
What is not in dispute is that larger mammals seem to be have greately benefitted from the Chernobyl, due to the removal of people from the area. Many of these mammals are rare. I can't help but thinking that anyone from the Piere and Marie Curie Institute is not going to be totally objective with regards to things nuclear.