Decades On, Chernobyl A Wildlife Haven, But Disease & Reproductive Failure Dog Some Species On Site

[hatrack]

EDIT

In the wake of the accident, more than 300,000 people were evacuated and an 800 square mile exclusion zone created around the reactor. Yet recently it has been reported that the abandoned town of Pripyat has become a wildlife haven. There have been sightings of wolves, bears and moose wandering through the deserted streets, and swifts swoop round abandoned office blocks. The implication is that if wildlife can return so soon, nuclear radiation – and nuclear power – might be less dangerous than has been suggested. James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia theory, has even written that the natural world "would welcome nuclear waste as the perfect guardian against greedy developers… the preference of wildlife for nuclear-waste sites suggests that the best sites for its disposal are the tropical forests and other habitats in need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by hungry farmers and developers".

According to a UN report in 2005, long-term cancers caused by Chernobyl will eventually kill about 4,000 people: an alarming total, but less than predicted. In fact, in an age of "dirty bombs" and nuclear proliferation, Chernobyl functions as a grim experiment into the consequences of extensive nuclear fallout. Although radiation levels have dropped significantly over the 23 years, there are still "hot" regions. Prof Mousseau says that the most contaminated areas measure 300 microSieverts per hour on the Geiger counter, the equivalent of 1,200 times normal radiation levels, or 15 times as much as a chest X-ray. "Long-term exposure would be deleterious," he adds drily.

EDIT

And despite the stories about nature thriving in the Chernobyl area, Prof Mousseau is not convinced. The first discovery that he and Prof Møller made was that birds in the fallout zone were suffering increased levels of genetic mutations. The pair examined 20,000 barn swallows and found crippled toes, deformed beaks, malformed tails, irregularly shaped eyes and tumours. Some birds had red plumage where it should have been blue, or blue where it should have been red. Thanks to the contamination of the food supply, bird species have declined by more than 50 per cent in high-radiation areas. Only a fraction of the swallows are reproducing, and of those that do lay eggs, only five per cent hatch. Fewer than a third of birds survive to become adults. Prof Mousseau and Prof Møller could confirm that these abnormalities were genetic by examining the swallows' sperm.

EDIT

Ed. (Other scientists') Their long-term studies contradicted those of Professors Mousseau and Møller, describing the region as "thriving", with a wild boar population 10 to 15 times higher in the exclusion zone than outside. They also failed to find any type of elevated mutation rate, or evidence that survival among animals living around Chernobyl differs from those in clean environments. "Chernobyl is not a lunar landscape," says Prof Mousseau. "You can hear birds and mammals, spot the occasional wolf and fox, there are trees and plants – so it's not a complete desert. The reason for this misunderstanding is because there is a quiltwork of contamination, so you could have lots of organisms in one area, and none in another. To a trained biologist, though, it's very obvious." Those are fighting words – particularly as both teams will shortly publish papers about mammals in the region that have diametrically opposed results.

EDIT

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6118036/The-mystery-of-Chernobyl.html

[MisterP]

1. you mean toxic waste *isn't* good for you?

and I'm certain Cheney would like radioactive waste in the rainforest: shortened lifespans and illness for all species involved

[madokie]

2. This caught my eye

(snip)
Regardless of who is right or wrong, there is another tragedy here. Prof Mousseau has started working with the Hospital for Radiation Biology, in Kiev, on a long-term study of humans who live in the area: more than 11,000 adults and 2,000 children in the Narodichesky region, 50 miles from Chernobyl.

Prof Mousseau says that the incidence among locals of cancer, birth defects and reduced lifespan is alarmingly high.

"There is a growing mountain of information that all points to significant consequences to the human population of chronic radiation exposure," he warns. "What will be the consequences for the children of these children?"
----------------------------------------

Could we deal with a Chernobyl here in this country? I mean what would we do if one of our nuke plants blew it's top? I know, I know some will say it can't happen here but I'm not so sure of that. Are we willing to take the chance? I'd like to see us put our efforts in renewables, solar and wind.
But seriously what would we do???

[Barrett808]

3. Often forgotten in these analyses of Chernobyl consequences are the "rectifiers"

A million citizens of the Soviet Union were brought in for the "cleanup" effort, and most were subjected to lifetime radiation doses in a few minutes. Almost no studies have followed up on their health, but eary indications (Chernousenko, Chernobyl: Insight from the Inside) showed that they were dying young, from a number of illnesses; almost all were denied health care by the USSR, their illnesses classified as "not related to radiation."

[madokie]

6. That is pretty much how the industry deals with anything

deny, deny and then deny some more. I don't think the energy produced is worth the risk of producing it.

[phantom power]

4. I can think of a few different ways to slice that question.

For instance, "How would we deal with it as a disaster?" Or "What would the energy-policy fallout be?" Or "How would our medical system and/or social safety net treat the survivors over time?"

I've heard that the US is not very well prepared for a disaster involving a large release of radioactive material, but I don't know. Under our current medical system, I suspect that victims of disease from such an accident might not be treated well as time passed. I feel pretty certain that it would kill any nuclear energy development in the US for at least another generation. It might have the same impact outside the US too, analogous to the world's reaction to Chernobyl.

The Chernobyl disaster was caused by a combination of bad reactor design and a deliberate decision to mis-use the reactor. A repeat of that nature is extremely unlikely.

[madokie]

5. We've had some pretty close calls here

TMI was a lot worse and was a lot closer to a major radiation release than what the government said or what the industry says. 107 reactors and they are all getting close to their designed age so I worry. I think the consequences of a major radiation release, or heaven forbid, a core meltdown would be too devastating to our country to take this possibility lightly. I really do believe we should work toward the day where we won't need them anymore.

Iron and concrete deteriorates with time and stress and sometimes its happening where one can't see it and they are the majority of the building materials involved. The canard that nuclear power is co2 negative is not true when one takes in the process of getting it from the ground to the reactor as that part of it is a pretty big energy hog. The industry can only survive if the government pumps lots of money into it or they price the power to where it would be sustainable then the price of the power to us would be so high as so we couldn't afford it. I just think we can get a bigger bang for our buck elsewhere and with a lot less of a chance of a big fuck up. Whats a man to do???

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/15345

[phantom power]

7. I can't predict what choices we'll make.

If we step outside of this forum, quite a lot of people still don't believe we have a problem to solve at all. And most of the remainder have not really thought much about what the alternatives really would be like if we get serious and build them on a terawatt scale. By default, we continue to burn fossil fuels. We burn the biosphere to the ground, and lose 80% of humanity. Or worse. Also, we will have sandworms.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PuZoLkvmBbc/SdpwaauC3UI/AAAAAAAADOE/lImSxivdNVY/s320/Shai-Hulud+Sandworms.jpg

[madokie]

8. I agree with that pretty much as you wrote it

We have to do something, I know that but with the downsides being as they are with nuclear I'm not sure it would be wise to take it further until something has been figured out. I do think we can make up the 20% that we get from nuclear now. Conservation for one, will go a long way as can phasing out old appliances, possibly design some things that use the nighttime surplus we always have, what I don't know but we are as a group pretty creative. Up to now there hasn't been all that much of an incentive to redesign, rethink the way we use our electrical power. I feel the long term survival of humans on the planet will be in better hands by us not saddling those future beings with our radioactive waste of today. How can we expect them to know how to deal with it when we haven't figured that out ourselves. IMHO