Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hatrack

(59,585 posts)
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 09:05 AM Mar 2014

Interesting! Survey Work Near Chernobyl Shows Dead Trees, Leaf Litter Not Decomposing

EDIT

However, there are even more fundamental issues going on in the environment. According to a new study published in Oecologia, decomposers—organisms such as microbes, fungi and some types of insects that drive the process of decay—have also suffered from the contamination. These creatures are responsible for an essential component of any ecosystem: recycling organic matter back into the soil. Issues with such a basic-level process, the authors of the study think, could have compounding effects for the entire ecosystem.

The team decided to investigate this question in part because of a peculiar field observation. “We have conducted research in Chernobyl since 1991 and have noticed a significant accumulation of litter over time,” the write. Moreover, trees in the infamous Red Forest—an area where all of the pine trees turned a reddish color and then died shortly after the accident—did not seem to be decaying, even 15 to 20 years after the meltdown. “Apart from a few ants, the dead tree trunks were largely unscathed when we first encountered them,” says Timothy Mousseau, a biologist at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and lead author of the study. “It was striking, given that in the forests where I live, a fallen tree is mostly sawdust after a decade of lying on the ground.”

Wondering whether that seeming increase in dead leaves on the forest floor and those petrified-looking pine trees were indicative of something larger, Mousseau and his colleagues decided to run some field tests. When they measured leaf litter in different parts of the exclusion zones, they found that the litter layer itself was two to three times thicker in the “hottest” areas of Chernobyl, where radiation poisoning was most intense. But this wasn’t enough to prove that radiation was responsible for this difference.

To confirm their hunch, they created around 600 small mesh bags and stuffed them each with leaves, collected at an uncontaminated site, from one of four different tree species: oak, maple, birch or pine. They took care to ensure that no insects were in the bags at first, and then lined half of them with women’s pantyhose to keep insects from getting in from the outside, unlike the wider mesh-only versions.

EDIT

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/forests-around-chernobyl-arent-decaying-properly-180950075/?no-ist

34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Interesting! Survey Work Near Chernobyl Shows Dead Trees, Leaf Litter Not Decomposing (Original Post) hatrack Mar 2014 OP
I say we get out there and build a shit pot more of these nuclear power plants madokie Mar 2014 #1
Seems to me that a lack of earthworms would be a factor as well Scootaloo Mar 2014 #2
Wow, I'd never heard that. I just assumed earthworms existed worldwide for eons. Arugula Latte Mar 2014 #9
Since the first settlers brought European plants, I assume NickB79 Mar 2014 #20
That might be why some Native Americans staged controlled burns LiberalEsto Mar 2014 #12
Pretty much, yeah Scootaloo Mar 2014 #21
Very interesting. longship Mar 2014 #3
Well, deliberate irradadiation has been used to keep food from spoiling GliderGuider Mar 2014 #4
This is a false comparison. eggplant Mar 2014 #5
In what way is it a "false" comparison? MNBrewer Mar 2014 #10
Because particle radiation and wave radiation are different beasts. eggplant Mar 2014 #14
What about beta particles? GliderGuider Mar 2014 #16
Ok. So how are the effects on microbes different? MNBrewer Mar 2014 #17
The effect is the same. The cause and duration of the effect is quite different. eggplant Mar 2014 #18
So the effect is the same, therefore is not a false comparison. MNBrewer Mar 2014 #24
Sigh. eggplant Mar 2014 #29
You said it was a false comparison, and you are wrong MNBrewer Mar 2014 #30
To the ignore pile with you. eggplant Mar 2014 #33
The end of the article mentions their next destination: riqster Mar 2014 #6
That makes perfect sense. nt GliderGuider Mar 2014 #7
The more I read, the more I think all the boron they dumped on the burning reactor plays a big part. hunter Mar 2014 #25
Interesting point. I didn't know about boron and decomposition. GliderGuider Mar 2014 #26
Good grief. bananas Mar 2014 #27
How does this relate to what I wrote? hunter Mar 2014 #31
It is a very informative read NickB79 Mar 2014 #34
That is eerie and terrifying. Arugula Latte Mar 2014 #8
Shouldn't This Also Be The Case DallasNE Mar 2014 #11
I think they carted all the soil away. Demeter Mar 2014 #13
some interesting stuff about test sites. littlewolf Mar 2014 #15
Nevada Test site is a fascinating explore on Google Maps satellite view. hunter Mar 2014 #19
On the other hand, Bikini Atoll was bombed 23 times NickB79 Mar 2014 #22
Could as well be all the crap they dumped on the reactor trying to put the fire out... hunter Mar 2014 #23
Your first guess is wrong. bananas Mar 2014 #28
See my post above. hunter Mar 2014 #32

madokie

(51,076 posts)
1. I say we get out there and build a shit pot more of these nuclear power plants
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 09:37 AM
Mar 2014

No where near enough devastation going on yet.


Yes I'm being a smart ass

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
2. Seems to me that a lack of earthworms would be a factor as well
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 09:55 AM
Mar 2014

Prior to their introduction in the Americas, leaf litter got pretty damned deep in the eastern forests, according to contemporary accounts. After earthworms, all that disappeared much more quickly

 

Arugula Latte

(50,566 posts)
9. Wow, I'd never heard that. I just assumed earthworms existed worldwide for eons.
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 11:24 AM
Mar 2014

Do you know when and how they were introduced to this hemisphere?

 

LiberalEsto

(22,845 posts)
12. That might be why some Native Americans staged controlled burns
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 11:33 AM
Mar 2014

I've read that this was done on a fairly regular basis in some areas to clear land for farming as well as get rid of accumulated tree and plant debris.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
21. Pretty much, yeah
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 01:39 PM
Mar 2014

The lack of earthworms also meant that nuts - chestnuts, acorns, beech, and the like - stayed on the ground under leaf litter... Which was the primary food source of the passenger pigeon.

Interestingly the gigantic flocks of which may have been due to the rapid expansion of these forests, due to the near-annihilation of natives, with hteir burning (this may have also created the massive herds of bison, as eastern bison populations are pushed west by forest, and so many fewer natives mean less hard predation of bison overall)

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
4. Well, deliberate irradadiation has been used to keep food from spoiling
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 10:36 AM
Mar 2014

It makes intuitive sense that inadvertent irradiation would do the same thing.

eggplant

(3,911 posts)
14. Because particle radiation and wave radiation are different beasts.
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 12:32 PM
Mar 2014

Radiation from a reactor melting down is particle radiation. Food irradiation isn't.

See http://www.radiationanswers.org/radiation-introduction/types-of-radiation.html

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
16. What about beta particles?
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 12:41 PM
Mar 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle

Beta particles are emitted from radioactive nuclei, and are ionizing. There are many beta emitters, including

tritium
cobalt-60
strontium-90
technetium-99
iodine-129 and -131
cesium-137

At short range (such as when such radioactive particles are in direct contact with leaves) their beta particles would still have a damaging effect on the microbes in the litter. Ionizing radiation of any sort can damage living tissue. That was my point, not that the forest floor was being bombarded by gamma rays or anything so nonsensical.

eggplant

(3,911 posts)
18. The effect is the same. The cause and duration of the effect is quite different.
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 12:58 PM
Mar 2014

Food is only irradiated during the explicit process. The contaminated lands around Chernobyl are continually irradiating anything around.

That was my only point.

eggplant

(3,911 posts)
29. Sigh.
Sat Mar 15, 2014, 11:44 AM
Mar 2014

One time radiation will sterilize food by killing (most of) the microbes in it. But the food will still rot over time when other microbes move in. In the OP, we're talking about a place where organic matter is being continually radiated, and thus rotting is inhibited.

I honestly don't know why you are arguing about this. Unless you are going to contribute to the conversation, I'm done explaining this.

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
30. You said it was a false comparison, and you are wrong
Sat Mar 15, 2014, 11:55 AM
Mar 2014

When someone is wrong on the internet, it is my responsibility to correct them.

hunter

(38,311 posts)
25. The more I read, the more I think all the boron they dumped on the burning reactor plays a big part.
Sat Mar 15, 2014, 12:40 AM
Mar 2014

Boron strongly inhibits decomposition. They dumped tons of it into the burning reactor.

A lot of boron ended up in the smoke and steam as they were fighting the fire and landed in the same places the radioactive particles did.

I'll bet they don't find much at Fukushima. That was a different sort of accident.



 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
26. Interesting point. I didn't know about boron and decomposition.
Sat Mar 15, 2014, 01:29 AM
Mar 2014

Yes, they dumped a metric assload of the stuff into that mouth of hell.

hunter

(38,311 posts)
31. How does this relate to what I wrote?
Sat Mar 15, 2014, 12:32 PM
Mar 2014

Have you ever poured boric acid an incandescent mass of graphite and heavy metals, some burning in air, some heated by nuclear reactions, to see what comes out? I imagine it's quite a mix of boron compounds, some of them quite exotic.

It's easy to measure the radioactive stuff, you simply look at the spectrum of energy emitted. Chemistry is more difficult.

Fungi and other decomposers are going to be sensitive to the radioactive components of the fallout, but various boron compounds are also known to inhibit decomposition.

I still maintain that a toxin is a toxin is a toxin, radioactive or not. Was the Bhopal disaster any less of a catastrophe because the toxins were not radioactive? No. Is the Picher, Oklahoma mess any less of a mess because it's not a nuclear disaster? No. (Hell that toxic waste has a half life of FOREVER!)

Should I worry any less about the carcinogenic fossil fuel particles in my lungs than the radioactive particles?



Just saying, we live in a bubbling stew of man-made toxic crap.

Believing that one category of toxic crap is somehow more evil than another category of toxic crap is a very strange religion.

NickB79

(19,236 posts)
34. It is a very informative read
Sat Mar 15, 2014, 03:57 PM
Mar 2014

But I didn't find anything in it that related to the lack of decomposition noted in the OP's new study, or anything contradicting hunter's hypothesis that boron contamination is responsible for it.

DallasNE

(7,403 posts)
11. Shouldn't This Also Be The Case
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 11:31 AM
Mar 2014

Where above ground nuclear tests were conducted decades ago -- even Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Just wondering.

 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
13. I think they carted all the soil away.
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 12:19 PM
Mar 2014

Not that there's much exposed soil in Japanese cities...they are pretty dense.

littlewolf

(3,813 posts)
15. some interesting stuff about test sites.
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 12:39 PM
Mar 2014
http://listverse.com/2012/05/15/top-10-nuclear-test-sites/

Pakistan: Koh Kambaran
interesting notes:
Although it is reasonably certain that Pakistan possessed nuclear capability as early as 1983, their first nuclear test was not carried out until May 1998. Koh Kambaran itself had been chosen as a test site as early as 1976. Located in Baluchistan Province, the site was chosen because the mountain ranges above the underground site are composed of granite and provide at least a kilometer of protection between the explosion and the open air above.
During the late 70′s a 1 km long tunnel was dug under the site. Pakistan’s political problems prevented any early testing of their devices and its wasn’t until May 28, 1998 that five nuclear devices were exploded in the course of one afternoon deep underground.
Koh Kambaran and Chagai-1 hold a special place in the Pakistani national consciousness and May 28 has been designated a public holiday entitled Day of National Greatness.

British: Maralinga (oz)
perhaps the most controversial was their decision to persuade the then pro-Imperial government of Australia to allow testing in the Outback.
The small problem of a resident Aboriginal population was solved easily by forcibly relocating the native residents to a new community, although they persisted in wandering back to their old home. Two major sets of tests were carried out in 1956 and 1957, one of which was the first ever dropping of a nuclear device from an RAF aircraft. Testing continued until 1963. Clean-up operations continued until 1967, however the site remained dangerously radioactive. In the 1980s, major controversy developed when Aboriginals, Australian and British servicemen who had been exposed began exhibiting symptoms of radiation-related disease and cancers. A massive clean-up was initiated and the area was declared safe for visiting but not occupancy in 2000. Both Britain and Australia were forced to pay out massive compensation to their servicemen and the Aboriginals affected. However the resident Aboriginal population has never been allowed to return to their former home.

India: Pokhran

Pokhran, in the state of Rajasthan, was chosen as its test site in the late 1960s. Although the Indian government claimed the site was in a remote desert area, it was near a population site. Pokhran was a town with a population of around 15000 when the first nuclear test was carried out at the nearby army base in September 1974.
It wasn’t until May 11, 1998 that India carried out another test at the site. Designated Pokhran-2., four nuclear devices were detonated. On May 13, a thermonuclear weapon was also detonated. According to Western sources, none of the tests yielded the expected results and India cancelled testing of further devices. It has been claimed that India has dismantled its testing facilities at Pohkran but the Indian government will neither confirm nor deny this. However, the site remains heavily restricted and is off-limits to foreign observers. Any evidence that the residents of Pokhran itself have been affected by the nuclear tests has been kept secret by the Indian government.

Bikini Atoll: USA

Bikini was selected in late 1945 to be the successor testing ground to Trinity in New Mexico, where the devices dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were developed. The island’s native population were moved to a nearby island with the assurance they would be back in 3 months. On July 1, 1946, the first peacetime detonation of a nuclear device was undertaken. The major subjects of the test were 250 obsolete and captured warships. Those ships not destroyed in that blast were subjected to a second test a month later. Between 1946 and 1954, some twenty tests were carried out. In 1957 the islands were declared safe, and some of the inhabitants allowed back, but they were forced to leave again after developing radiation sickness. The islands remain uninhabitable to this day, although it has become a popular spot for divers scouring the wrecks of the ships sunk in the initial tests. However, the site is so contaminated that fish caught in the vicinity cannot be safely eaten. Bikini Atoll was designated a World Heritage site in 2010.

Kiritimati: British and USA

Probably unique as the only site where two different countries have tested their weapons, Kiritimati, once known as Christmas Island, is an atoll which is now part of the Republic of Kiribati. One of the most remote places on earth, located virtually in the centre of the Pacific almost equidistant between Australia and North America, the island was chosen as a test site by Britain in 1957 in order to test its hydrogen bomb, Further tests were carried in 1958, before the British abandoned the site. The US took over in 1962 and detonated 22 devices before it too abandoned the island as a test site in 1969. Throughout all of the testing the island’s small population remained on the island, and subsequently some of them, as well as servicemen from Britain, New Zealand and the US, have reported radiation-induced sickness and higher than normal cancer rates. Nevertheless, the island’s population has grown substantially since the tests and the native flora and fauna continue to flourish.

(I find that last line interesting given what was said about Chernobyl.)

Lop Nur: China

The Chinese tested their first nuclear device at this isolated marshy area in the Bayingolin Autonomous Mongol Province in October 1964. The test, designated 596, yielded 22 kilotons. It was followed by 44 further tests, 22 of them in the atmosphere and 22 underground before the Chinese suspended testing in 1996. Among the weapons tested here was China’s first hydrogen bomb, detonated in 1967. The Chinese have never released details of the effects on the local population and the environment. The area is particularly sensitive because nearby is the location of the famous Tarim mummies, as well as substantial remains of their ancient culture dating back to 1800 BC. However, the Chinese have never allowed foreign observers to examine the site of the tests and it remains off-limits to locals and tourists alike.

Mururoa: French

Arguably the most controversial test site in the world, the French decision to test nuclear weapons in their remote territory of French Polynesia caused major friction with other Pacific nations, most notably Australia and New Zealand.
There were grave environmental concerns after it was revealed continued underground testing at the site was threatening to crack the coral base of the islands and release radioactive material into the Pacific. Relations between France and NZ reached a new low when French agents bombed a Greenpeace vessel in Auckland Harbour in 1985, killing one person.
Eventually, under intense international pressure, France declared an end to nuclear testing in the Pacific. The last test was carried out in January 1996, after which the site was dismantled. The site remains a sensitive one though, as observers have noted that dangerous radioactivity is still present and that the monitoring systems set up by the French are inadequate.

Novaya Zemlya: USSR

This remote and icy island above the Arctic Circle was subjected to 224 nuclear detonations by the Soviet Union between 1954 and 1990. Its main claim to fame is that in 1961, the largest ever nuclear detonation was carried out here, measuring over 100 megatons. However, the logistical problems of using this remote and inhospitable island meant it was never as favored for testing by the Soviets as the Semipalatinsk site in Kazakhstan. The last test was carried out here in 1990, just before the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Russian Federation has continued to use the site for low-level nuclear testing, short of detonation. The small native population who were removed in 1954 have never been allowed to return to their homes.

Semipalatinsk: USSR
This most favored site for Soviet nuclear testing has been since 1991 the property of the Republic of Kazakhstan, who inherited a wealth of health and environmental problems that may take generations to be fully calculated. The Soviets conducted a whopping 465 nuclear detonations here between 1949 and 1981. Originally constructed in the Stalinist era with slave labour from the gulag, it was here that Russia’s first nuclear weapon was detonated in 1949. It was always the subject of intense interest by the West and particularly the US, who directed numerous U2 flights and then spy satellites to watch over the site. As a consequence the Soviets sent most of their infrastructure underground to hide it from the spies in the skies. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the site was handed over to the Kazakhs, who as signatories of the Central Asian Nuclear Free Zone treaty have declined to put it to the same use as the Soviets did. However, the health problems reported by some 220000 local residents including higher than average cancer rates will continue to exercise the minds of the Kazakh authorities for many years to come.

Nevada Test Site: USA

Welcome to the most nuked place on the planet. A staggering 928 nuclear tests were carried out in this 3500 km square area of Nevada 107 km north of Las Vegas between 1951 and 1992, more than 800 of them underground.
In the early days the nuclear tests were almost a tourist attraction. Mobsters attempting to build the gambling business in Las Vegas offered viewings of nuclear explosions as an added lure to visitors. Thousands of films and pictures were taken and distributed around the world. Movie productions were made amidst the dust blowing from nuclear detonations. However, as the health implications of the tests became known, it ceased to be a site for tourist exploitation and became a serious concern for the US government. It has been revealed that the cancer rates in the area surrounding the test site are almost twice that of the US population. A significant increase in childhood leukemia has been noted in the years following the beginning of nuclear testing. Numerous lawsuits alleging health problems have been brought against the US government since 1982. Over $500 million has already been paid out in compensation, and it is estimated the eventual health bill from the Nevada Test Site may exceed $5 billion. In 2009 the Nevada Test Site was officially declared the second most radioactively contaminated spot on the planet after Chernobyl. It is believed that radiation levels in some areas of the site actually exceed those present in Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately after the A-bombs were dropped in 1945.

hunter

(38,311 posts)
19. Nevada Test site is a fascinating explore on Google Maps satellite view.
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 01:12 PM
Mar 2014

You can see some vegetation effects there, experiments where they put reactors and other radiation sources in towers, in addition to the usual fallout.

NickB79

(19,236 posts)
22. On the other hand, Bikini Atoll was bombed 23 times
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 01:40 PM
Mar 2014

With the equivalent force of 7000 Hiroshima bombs: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1339

And after 60 years looks like this:



They've actually found thriving coral reefs INSIDE the massive crater created by the Bravo H-bomb: http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0526-dance_bikini.html

So clearly whatever is going on at Chernobyl is in some way different from what occurred at nuclear testing sites like this one.

hunter

(38,311 posts)
23. Could as well be all the crap they dumped on the reactor trying to put the fire out...
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 02:03 PM
Mar 2014

Last edited Fri Mar 14, 2014, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

... and stop further reactions.

Boron would be my first guess.

The fire was extinguished by a combined effort of helicopters dropping over 5,000 metric tons of sand, lead, clay, and neutron-absorbing boron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Immediate_crisis_management


hunter

(38,311 posts)
32. See my post above.
Sat Mar 15, 2014, 12:46 PM
Mar 2014

I'm not in "denial" at all.

Anyone who is not utterly horrified by the damage humans have done to this planet is in "denial."

Right now, somewhere in the world, maybe here in the U.S.A. there are some guys scraping radioactive scale off pipes without any protective outerwear, no respirators, nothing, so the pipe can be reused or recycled.

It's not happening in the nuclear industry, it's happening in the oil and gas industry.

Gas and other fossil fuels are hideous, nuclear power is hideous, even solar and wind power have their hideous aspects.

I've posted plenty enough here for people to know what I'm about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4504524


Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Interesting! Survey Work...