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
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAt Chernobyl and Fukushima, Radioactivity Has Seriously Harmed Wildlife
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-25/at-chernobyl-and-fukushima-radioactivity-has-seriously-harmed-wildlifeThe largest nuclear disaster in history occurred 30 years ago at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in what was then the Soviet Union. The meltdown, explosions and nuclear fire that burned for 10 days injected enormous quantities of radioactivity into the atmosphere and contaminated vast areas of Europe and Eurasia. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that Chernobyl released 400 times more radioactivity into the atmosphere than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
Radioactive cesium from Chernobyl can still be detected in some food products today. And in parts of central, eastern and northern Europe many animals, plants and mushrooms still contain so much radioactivity that they are unsafe for human consumption.
The first atomic bomb exploded at Alamogordo, New Mexico more than 70 years ago. Since then, more than 2,000 atomic bombs have been tested, injecting radioactive materials into the atmosphere. And over 200 small and large accidents have occurred at nuclear facilities. But experts and advocacy groups are still fiercely debating the health and environmental consequences of radioactivity.
However, in the past decade population biologists have made considerable progress in documenting how radioactivity affects plants, animals and microbes. My colleagues and I have analyzed these impacts at Chernobyl, Fukushima and naturally radioactive regions of the planet.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 734 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (9)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
At Chernobyl and Fukushima, Radioactivity Has Seriously Harmed Wildlife (Original Post)
WhiteTara
Apr 2016
OP
Brother Buzz
(36,448 posts)1. Paradoxically, wildlife is thriving in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl
csziggy
(34,136 posts)5. That may be as a result of removing humans from the area
While the damages from radiation are more insidious and long term to the populations. From the link in the OP:
Some members of the radiation regulatory community have been slow to acknowledge how nuclear accidents have harmed wildlife. For example, the U.N.-sponsored Chernobyl Forum instigated the notion that the accident has had a positive impact on living organisms in the exclusion zone because of the lack of human activities. A more recent report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation predicts minimal consequences for the biota animal and plant life of the Fukushima region.
Unfortunately these official assessments were largely based on predictions from theoretical models, not on direct empirical observations of the plants and animals living in these regions. Based on our research, and that of others, it is now known that animals living under the full range of stresses in nature are far more sensitive to the effects of radiation than previously believed. Although field studies sometimes lack the controlled settings needed for precise scientific experimentation, they make up for this with a more realistic description of natural processes.
Unfortunately these official assessments were largely based on predictions from theoretical models, not on direct empirical observations of the plants and animals living in these regions. Based on our research, and that of others, it is now known that animals living under the full range of stresses in nature are far more sensitive to the effects of radiation than previously believed. Although field studies sometimes lack the controlled settings needed for precise scientific experimentation, they make up for this with a more realistic description of natural processes.
Brother Buzz
(36,448 posts)6. Totally because of the exclusion of man
and that's why I say it's a paradox
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)2. What about fish?
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)3. The problem is humans are worse than radioactivity for wildlife.
Sure, the radioactivity is not good for wildlife, but the fact the humans are gone is actually a net gain to the wildlife.
hunter
(38,321 posts)4. Amazingly all that open air bomb testing didn't kill all of us, just a small number of us.
During the Cold War radioactive waste was deliberately released a few times, as in the notorious Green Run at Hanford
The "Green Run" was a secret U.S. Government release of radioactive fission products on December 23, 1949, at the Hanford Site plutonium production facility, located in Eastern Washington. Radioisotopes released at that time were supposed to be detected by U.S. Air Force reconnaissance. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the U.S. Government have revealed some of the details of the experiment. Sources cite 5,500 to 12,000 curies (200 to 440 TBq) of iodine-131 released, and an even greater amount of xenon-133. The radiation was distributed over populated areas, and caused the cessation of intentional radioactive releases at Hanford until 1962 when more experiments commenced.
It ought to horrify us humans that our ordinary daily activities are much more damaging to wildlife than nuclear power plant accidents.
I think if I was a fish I'd rather be living slightly contaminated with radioactive toxins in a "hot" no-fishing zone than dead and "not radioactive" on a dinner plate.
Yes, radioactive pollution is bad, but being displaced by humans is worse.