Chernobyl area becomes wildlife haven - AP

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Chernobyl area becomes wildlife haven

By DOUGLAS BIRCH, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 7, 6:45 PM ET

-snip-

The return of wildlife to the region near the world's worst
nuclear power accident is an apparent paradox that biologists
are trying to measure and understand.

-snip-

Biologist Robert J. Baker of Texas Tech University was one
of the first Western scientists to report that Chernobyl had
become a wildlife haven. He says the mice and other rodents
he has studied at Chernobyl since the early 1990s have shown
remarkable tolerance for elevated radiation levels.

But Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina, a
biologist who studies barn swallows at Chernobyl, says that
while wild animals have settled in the area, they have struggled
to build new populations.

-snip-

But their disagreement also reflects a deeper split among
biologists who study the effects of exposure to radiation. Some,
like Baker, think organisms can cope with the destructive
effects of radiation up to a point — beyond which they begin
to suffer irreparable damage. Others believe that even low
doses of radiation can trigger cancers and other illnesses.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070607/ap_on_re_eu/chernobyl_wildlife

[MistressOverdone]

1. Ironic

but I've always heard that roaches would live through a nuclear winter.

[alkaline9]

2. I think evolution will play its role too...

...survival of the fittest. Obviously some animals/genes will be able to withstand more radiation than others. The ones that can withstand the most will survive longer, reproduce more, and find a new safe home away from humans in Chernobyl.

...at least until humans find an immunity to radiation.

... it is hopeful though, that even after we have nuked and killed all traces of human life from the planet, that life will survive. I think a planet without humans would be a lot more stable.

[gravity]

6. Humans could probably survive

but no humans would want to live there

We are just animals. There would be more birth defects, but natural selection would take care of that. The problem is that most humans don't want natural selection to weed out the weak and deformed caused by the radiation.

[Nihil]

7. True enough.

> The problem is that most humans don't want natural selection to
> weed out the weak and deformed caused by the radiation.

The problem is that most humans don't want natural selection to
weed out the weak and deformed (physically or mentally) full stop.

Some people call that "being human".

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Actually, they do...

Google "Samosely". Numbers given vary, but there are dozens who live in the exclusion zone: How long they live is another question, but it's probably no worse than down-town Beijing in terms of life expectancy.

[RoseMead]

3. Why do I have a vision of giant ants? n/t

[NNadir]

4. Because that is how you have been told to think.

What people have been told to think about nuclear issues varies greatly from nuclear realities.

[Javaman]

16. Personally, I welcome our new giant ant overlords. nt

[blueworld]

5. Follow the money

Pro-nuke US Dept of Energy funded Baker's study which sees wildlife returning to area & doing well. National Geographic & National Science Foundation funded Mousseau's study which sees wildlife returning & suffering from effects of radiation.

And just out of curmudgeonly curiosity, why is my tax money funding studies in Russia when the US Dept of Energy can't craft a decent energy policy here? :wtf: Couldn't that study have been funded by a private pro-nuke group just as easily?

[pipoman]

8. I would love to see

a system of new, modern nuclear power facilities built in the US from coast to coast. Then a series of coal to oil facilities/refineries to utilize our vast coal production. These 2 things would make the US energy independent IMO.

[phantom power]

9. Except that burning coal will kill us all.

[pipoman]

10. It is my understanding that the coal to oil

facilities proposed a year or so ago by GE are very clean, far more clean than our current coal generators. The proposal IIRC was crude oil production from coal at around $40 per barrel. I don't know the feasibility but the proposal IIRC GE was willing to build the facilities for $40 guarantee on their output. While it would be nice to have a less polluting alternative, until that is feasible on a large scale I would settle for energy independence.

[NNadir]

11. Clean in what way?

Someone has a place to put all the dangerous coal waste (carbon dioxide)?

Clean mines?

There is no such thing as clean coal, period. By definition coal liquefaction programs lose energy because they require heat <em>and</em> water.

No permanent carbon dioxide repository on significant scale is planned anywhere on earth. Not one has been built. Not one is on order.

[pipoman]

12. As I said, I don't know the

feasibility of the GE plants.

I do feel that incremental improvement is better than sitting on our hands, as we are currently doing.

I like to be able to turn on my lights, my computer, the stove, have hot water, be able to drive to the store to shop, hop the occasional flight to Vegas, etc. Right now 1/2 of my energy dollars are going to support regimes around the world made up of people who hate me to the point of wishing me and my family dead. If there is an alternative, which would be feasible, to make the US energy independent and improve environmental impact I am interested. I have no illusion that we are suddenly going to be able to supply our energy demand with absolutely no impact to the environment, improvement is what I hope for.

[phantom power]

14. Well, you've got various kinds of pollution to consider...

You've got what we traditionally call pollution: sulfur, NOx, particulates, etc. In this respect, we have made lots of progress in "cleaning" our emissions, both from centralized sources like power plants, and point sources like autos.

But, it's become clear over the last 20 years or so that the waste which is really going to kill billions of people is CO2. (and methane). The thing about these pollutants is that they aren't trace-elements that can be (relatively) easily scrubbed. They are fundmental chemical products of burning fossil carbon, and they are produced in billion-ton quantities every year.

You can't scrub that. People talk about sequestering it, but the practicalities of sequestering billion-ton quantities of a gas are pretty damned daunting. Gasses don't want to be sequestered. They want to fly, and be free. And obey Boyle's law.

Lots of debate here in E/E about that, but for my 2 cents, it's just not credible.

[Javaman]

17. Heck, from coal plants, CO2 would be the least of our problems when you

look at the amount of heavy metals they put into the air.

The BS that is continually spouted by the pro-coal groups as to "clean coal" is just that BS. Those pro-coal groups are usually funded by the coal industry, much like how the oil industry funds "studies" to prove that climate change is witchcraft.

[Javaman]

15. It's the best! At night you can see the glowing deer! nt