Chernobyl - Environmental disaster or blessing in disguise?

--amadeus--

A bitter dispute is raging over whether the fallout zone is a wasteland or wonderland. Now, a team of scientists is heading back into the contaminated area to find out the truth.

Two teams of biologists have been examining the exclusion zone around Chernobyl with starkly different results. One claims that the radiation enforced lack of man has created a perfect habitat for wildlife to flourish (wild boar populations 10 - 15 times higher than average) and with minimal genetic mutation. Naturally this calls into question the entire basis for the exclusion zone.

Another team though paint a picture of species in decline and with several genetic abnormalities.

Full article here. Some photos of Pripyat here. Fascinating subject, a place I'd love to visit.

What do you think - haven or hell?

Prof.Badass

whatever happens they should keep it abandoned and un-attended imo.

vinylmesh

vinylmesh wrote: »

whatever happens they should keep it abandoned and un-attended imo.

For what reasons? To prevent dangerous contact for humans? Or, to keep it desolate so animals can continue to live in their, apparently, extra-freedom?

Jessibelle

If it was kept unattended it could be used for even further scientific discovery. If life continues to proliferate, we have a template/baseline for surviving a nuclear disaster and a rough guesstimate of times we can expect soils etc to return to fertile/habitable levels. Likewise if the life begins to deteriorate/mutate. I think that it could prove to be an exceptionally useful live 'petri dish' which could only be benificical in the future event that many countries switch to nuclear power.

AlmightyCushion

I remember seeing a great documentary before where they said that the levels of cancer and mutations as a result of chernobyl where nowhere near as high as they thought they would be. It seems what we previously thought about how radiation affected our bodies were way off and we are more resilient than we first thought. They also came to the conclusion that a certain amount of background radiation is actually beneficial to the human bodies and led to cancer rates to drop slightly.

I'll try and find it out. I think it was a bbc documentary.

Fajitas!

An old favorite of mine re; radiation in Chernobyl;

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl

I find it really interesting. It's someplace I'm determined to visit, although I won't get a chance before they seal up the power station. Something to bear in mind when you're given statistics on Chernobyls' radiation - If you're told the effects on humans in the area are not as bad as predicted, it's hugely down to the lack of people there, those that are either don't have much contact with the surveys or are working there, and are there on/off to reduce the effects of radiation.

If you're looking for the real effects, look at countries like Belarus, and it's far from pretty. Another problem with the growth in flora and fauna is a lot of it is inedible - So while there is groth there, it dosn't provide any extra resources.

AlmightyCushion

Fajitas! wrote: »

An old favorite of mine re; radiation in Chernobyl;

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl

I find it really interesting. It's someplace I'm determined to visit, although I won't get a chance before they seal up the power station. Something to bear in mind when you're given statistics on Chernobyls' radiation - If you're told the effects on humans in the area are not as bad as predicted, it's hugely down to the lack of people there, those that are either don't have much contact with the surveys or are working there, and are there on/off to reduce the effects of radiation.

If you're looking for the real effects, look at countries like Belarus, and it's far from pretty. Another problem with the growth in flora and fauna is a lot of it is inedible - So while there is groth there, it dosn't provide any extra resources.

When I said the effects weren't as bad as they thought they would be it was in relation to people who were there when the plant melt down.

--amadeus--

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

When I said the effects weren't as bad as they thought they would be it was in relation to people who were there when the plant melt down.

Apparently as few as 56 fatalities directly attributed (according to the World Nuclear Assoc, now they *must* be neutral, right?). A slighter wider ranging study by a slightly less biased group concludes that 4,000 dead as a result may be closer to the mark.

I'm quite interested in Urban Exploration and abandoned tech / buildings so somewhere like Pripyat is fascinating. I find it hard to believe it is as benign as some scientists imply although leaving it in place as a case study of natural recovery from a disaster seems to make a lot more sense than opening it back up for resettlement.

Although I understand that there are still a few people living in the area.

Red Hand

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Two teams of biologists have been examining the exclusion zone around Chernobyl with starkly different results. One claims that the radiation enforced lack of man has created a perfect habitat for wildlife to flourish (wild boar populations 10 - 15 times higher than average) and with minimal genetic mutation. Naturally this calls into question the entire basis for the exclusion zone.

Another team though paint a picture of species in decline and with several genetic abnormalities.

Full article here. Some photos of Pripyat here. Fascinating subject, a place I'd love to visit.

What do you think - haven or hell?

I would see it as a blessing in disguise for nature. Many of the cancers that are produced from the radiation there don't manifest themselves until after about 20 years of life, by which time many animals will have grown up, bred and died. But not so for humans.

There are few enough places where there is fertile land with low populations of humans in Europe. I think they reintroduced the European Bison to the area recently which is a good thing considering it was almost extinct 70 years ago.

I don't think I would sample the boar on offer if on a visit to Russia, Bylorussia or the Ukraine...I think poachers might be doing a reseanable business on the outskirts of the exclusion zone.:)

Fajitas!

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

When I said the effects weren't as bad as they thought they would be it was in relation to people who were there when the plant melt down.

Well, that *is* true, but a lot of assumptions made when the plants first went down were on a 100% fatality rate - As it stands (And as Amadeus said) the numbers are (possibly) quite high, but regardless of those, the main problems are going to be further down the line - if you have a look through the photodocumentary I posted above (Which is, at the end of the day, another biased source - They're trying to get views and attention too!!) you'll see the real after effects, especially in countries outside Chernobyl.

Just another point on this;

I remember seeing a great documentary before where they said that the levels of cancer and mutations as a result of chernobyl where nowhere near as high as they thought they would be. It seems what we previously thought about how radiation affected our bodies were way off and we are more resilient than we first thought. They also came to the conclusion that a certain amount of background radiation is actually beneficial to the human bodies and led to cancer rates to drop slightly.

Some of the earlier documentary's took recordings when heavily radiated soil was covered over, unfortunately when the trees grew up through them, they brought the radiation with them. Not saying the Beeb's documentary did or not, it's just something to remember if you're doing any research. It's all sorts of f*cked up out there

Apparently the night of the disaster itself, the forest glowed with radiation. That must have been quite the sight.

I would see it as a blessing in disguise for nature. Many of the cancers that are produced from the radiation there don't manifest themselves until after about 20 years of life, by which time many animals will have grown up, bred and died. But not so for humans.

Unfortunately, it's not just in the cancers after 20 you've got the problem, it's in the breeding - Unborn animals being exposed to high levels of radiation does all sorts of crazy sheee-ate to them - linkie;

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE52H09020090318

[though, again, bear in mind - It's Routers, they are trying to get people clicking, and one mention of the word 'mutation' usually does that]

I'm quite interested in Urban Exploration and abandoned tech / buildings so somewhere like Pripyat is fascinating.

You know about the Urbex forum on here, right?

Also; Boards.ie does Pripyat.

Overheal

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I remember seeing a great documentary before where they said that the levels of cancer and mutations as a result of chernobyl where nowhere near as high as they thought they would be. It seems what we previously thought about how radiation affected our bodies were way off and we are more resilient than we first thought. They also came to the conclusion that a certain amount of background radiation is actually beneficial to the human bodies and led to cancer rates to drop slightly.

I'll try and find it out. I think it was a bbc documentary.

how does that translate to solar radiation?

Fajitas!

Overheal wrote: »

how does that translate to solar radiation?

Different forms of radiation really, different densities, quantities and effects - Solar radiation's best example is the sun, which is quite filtered by the time it reaches us (nevermind Ireland :pac: ). It does have it's benefits - Your body produces Vitamin D through exposure to the sun, as well as sun tans and skin cancers. Solar radiation is something (most of us) experience every day, it's not a heavy dose of radiation, and more exposure when we're younger makes us more used to its effects. I don't know the effects of solar radiation closer to the sun, though I'd imagine it resembles that time I left the frying pan on too long with a few rashers in...

If you want a miniature replica of solar radiation, have a look at UV beds.