chilling Chernobyl pics present day

Very interesting... saw this on Slashdot a while back. And hurray for cute Russian chicks with motorcycles?

BTW, check out how the dates are listed on the calendar. Very weird!

What a terrific photo essay! I'm speechless!

It was a journey,sad,yet prophetic picture of the civilized soul when it finally abandons love..

The wolves are tame...at Chernobyl,Tame only when people are all gone.
Strange.Shows what good comes from bad effects we create with our wonderful 'civilization' and it sadly also shows the good things that can happen to other species without us and our corruption.Wolves would live in radiation rather than near human habitation....It's something inside humanity ,unchecked in our hearts that has poisoned the Earth with evil intentions,abuse and power games.

God forbid that this be what the end of the world looks like.

I mean, this photo essay should receive a Pulitzer or whatever photo journalism gets.

they're basically given out without regard to journalistic standards nowadays, aren't they?

heck, didn't judith miller get one?

it is clever propaganda in any event.

It had the appearance of a post-apocalypse film on a "Blair Witch"
budget then you realise that these were not carefully-staged film sets
but the actual remnants of real lives, the remains of real childhood,
the lost dreams of the real population.

Sad but powerful.

Nihil

just wow.

It would be more frightening than any movie I've ever seen.

but doesn't the word "documentary" imply that a "fair and balanced" (in the real sense of the phrase, not fox's) presentation will be provided?

what's frightening to me is all the praise that this propaganda-laden site is generating on DU.

I looked at the site and saw mostly pictures. :shrug:

on a slightly different topic, the motivation for bringing up this issue is that this photoessay was presented in the "science" forum. consequently, the information presented therein might be expected to be able to pass cursory scientific scrutiny - if not, i don't feel it is overly harsh to label it as "propaganda."

as i stated the last time this photoessay was posted - if the entire point is to engage in some type of "feel-good" emotionalism (or in this case i suppose it would be "feel-bad" emotionalism) regardless of reality - just post a disclaimer to such effect and i'll shut up. otherwise i tend to get a bit ornery and like to think i'm performing a public service (yeah, deep down inside i know nobody cares) by presenting counterpoint information.

really enjoyed it.

new nuker plants here in the US!

Thanks for posting this!!

Bring it! Its the old ones that scare me.

gives me the creeps. And their security is a joke.

there. I live in New Jersey and I'm freaking out about the coal waste from Ohio and Michigan that rains here. I wish they had nuclear plants. I wish we had a few more. (We have the highest level of coal fallout mercury in the nation.) That's why I love Oyster Creek.

Because of Oyster Creek, I buy electric power tools such as leaf blowers, hedge trimmers, and weed wackers. I feel less polluting when I do this than I would feel with a gasoline (dirty) two cycle engine.

I just wish it wasn't so easy to access. I'm worried about the coal plants, too, for the reasons you stated. I guess I'm just a worrier, I get scared of things nuclear, because a nuclear accident has the potential to be the gift that keeps on giving. And giving. I don't think they have any sort of idea what do to with the waste, either. I don't like the idea of having to make sure a storage facility that will be guarded virtually forever. I don't think it is possible.

I'm sorry to report that no energy system is without risk. The best you can do is minimize risk.

There has yet to be a single demonstrable death from nuclear power plant operations in the United States, even though one reactor, Three Mile Island, failed catastrophically. You can take comfort in knowing that understanding of that accident, the failure analysis, of that particular accident has prevented its repeat. On the other hand, over ten thousand people die each year in New York City alone from air pollution related causes.

It would be very difficult for a terrorist to steal nuclear materials from a reactor, simply because handling spent fuel rods is a rather daunting task.

I have written many threads here on this site addressing the problem of so called nuclear "waste," often making the point that there is no solution to any form of energy "waste." However nuclear waste is extremely concentrated, and therefore comparatively easy to contain. Ultimately nuclear "waste" will be recycled.

It happens that the waste of other forms of energy are merely ignored not "solved." Every form of energy keeps "giving and giving and giving" as you say.

If you are discomforted by energy production, keep in mind that the alternative, having NO energy, would be much much worse for your prospects of survival than having Oyster Creek at your beach. In fact, it is possible to show that your risk of getting melanoma from the suntan you get at the beach, even if you use sunscreen (as you should), is much higher than your risk of being harmed by operations at the reactor.

nuclear materials (some helpful agent of our government would probably sell it to them, if the price was right). I am worried about someone blowing one up. Unfortunately, I would be too close for comfort if that happened. And since there is no real viable evacuation plan, I am worried. (If you live in NJ, then you know what I am talking about. The parkway is a parking lot in the summer. Add fleeing panicky people. I know that no plan is without risk, but nuclear is a very, vveeeerrryyyy long term risk. Given the half-life of many of the components of nuclear fuel and its companion waste.

I know that you think that nuclear is safe. You are entitled to your opinion. I do not think it is safe in the long-term. That doesn't make you right or me wrong. And it doesn't make you wrong and me right. It just gives us different opinions.

I know lots of people die from air pollution. I know that all energy production makes waste. I hope you don't think I'm an idiot. I tried not to take it that way. I just am very suspicious about nuclear power, nuclear weapons and nuclear waste. I have read a lot about it, too, and I don't find it comforting. I know how hard it would be without a power source, I just wish that there was a viable alternative to nuclear power.

On edit: What worries me also is that some of the technicians that run the plants sometimes do not seem to know what they are doing. Operator ineptitude was the main problem at the Chernobyl generating station. And it could have had a lot to do with the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island. It seems like a lot of the problems with nuclear reactors is the "OMG, this has never happened before. Now what do we do?" (I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here-I'm not really an empty-headed old lady, but I think I have trouble making my thoughts clear.)

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/page.cfm?pageID=790
The reactor core at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant sits within a metal pot designed to withstand pressures up to 2,500 pounds per square inch. The pot -- called the reactor vessel -- has carbon steel walls nearly six inches thick to provide the necessary strength. Because the water cooling the reactor contains boric acid that is highly corrosive to carbon steel, the entire inner surface of the reactor vessel is covered with 3/16-inch thick stainless steel. But water routinely leaked onto the reactor vessel's outer surface. Because the outer surface lacked a protective stainless steel coating, boric acid ate its way through the carbon steel wall until it reached the backside of the inner liner. High pressure inside the reactor vessel pushed the stainless steel outward into the cavity formed by the boric acid. The stainless steel bent but did not break. Cooling water remained inside the reactor vessel not because of thick carbon steel but due to a thin layer of stainless steel. The plant's owner ignored numerous warning signs spanning many years to create the reactor with a hole in its head.


The Three Mile Island nuclear plant experienced a loss of coolant accident in March 1979. Emergency pumps automatically started to replace the water flowing out the leak. Operators turned off the pumps because instruments falsely indicated too much water in the reactor vessel. Within two hours, the reactor core overheated and melted, triggering the evacuation of nearly 150,000 people.


At the Callaway nuclear plant in 2001, workers encountered problems while testing one of the emergency pumps. Investigation revealed that a foam-like bladder inside the RWST was flaking apart. Water carried chunks of debris to the pump where it blocked flow. The debris would have disabled all the emergency pumps during an accident.


At the Haddam Neck nuclear plant in 1996, the NRC discovered the piping carrying water from the RWST to the reactor vessel was too small. It was long enough but it was not wide enough to carry enough water during an accident to re-fill the reactor vessel in time to prevent meltdown. The plant operated for nearly 30 years with this undetected vulnerability.


At several US and foreign nuclear power plants, including the Limerick nuclear plant 8 years ago, the force of water/steam entering the containment building during a loss of coolant accident has blown insulation off piping and equipment. The water carried that insulation and other debris into the containment sump. The debris clogged the piping going to the emergency pumps much like hair clogs a bathtub drain. According to a recent government report, 46 percent of US nuclear plants are very likely to experience blockage in the containment sumps in event of a hole the size found at Davis-Besse opens up. For slightly larger holes, the chances of failure increase to 82 percent.<1>

Chernobyl blew because they were performing an experiment with the reactor. They were testing the functionality of battery back-ups to continue operation in case of power loss. They turned the output of the reactor down, but it fell too low. When they brought it back up to full power, the yanked the control rods out to compensate for a neutron absorption problem they were seeing as a result of power output being decreased too far. They pulled the control rods out beyond the safety limits and ultimately lost control of the reactor.

It's meaningless as a comparison for the safety of U.S. nuke power, except that good reactor designs are important, and safety protocols should be observed.

~AbM

engineers and the nuclear staff was basically isolated from the test conditions. Further the test was one that was supposed to have been performed before the operation received a license, not after it went through one complete fuel cycle in normal operations. The procedure was completely ad hoc. Moreover the reactor was designed to have dual use capability, generating power and providing weapons grade plutonium, hence the positive void co-efficient in the core, as well the lack of a containment structure.

The failure of this reactor is a graphic demonstration of the failure of the Soviet system. The reactor failure not only led to the abandonment (for eternity) of the concept of building RBMK's (and other reactors lacking passive safety features), but also, ultimately, at least in part, the abandonment of the Soviet system itself. Zhores A. Medvedev covered the topic of design flaws; the behavior of the Soviet bureaucracy before, during and after the accident; and the effect on the Russian future of the Chernobyl accidents in his book "The Legacy of Chernobyl," written in 1992. Some of Dr. Medvedev's conclusions differ from my own, but I have the luxury of looking at the event 14 years after he did.

all over her face.

I have done this before and will do it again and post a website that has lots of pictures of people in the Chernobyl exclusion zone including this one:



this one:



and this (part of a scientfic poster):



These can all be found on the website of the geneticist Robert Baker, whose research group has made scientific trips to the Chernobyl site 14 times, whose research group has been studying the Chernobyl disaster, : http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chernobyl/posters.htm

The fact is that the Chernobyl exclusion zone is one of the most vibrant ecosystems in Southeastern Europe. The fact is that the entire history of nuclear power world wide has not resulted in the same number of deaths as will occur this week owing to air pollution.

Actually the claim that this website is "chilling," is rather absurd. You can take photographs selectively of any site "abandoned by human beings and draw "chilling" conclusions. (A typical abandoned coal strip mine should do the trick.) Perusing a cute website and drawing conclusions about rational energy choices is a very, very, very poor way of thinking.

The fact is very clear. Seen in a purely rational as opposed to a emotional way, nuclear power, watt for watt, is the safest and cleanest available energy option with the exception of wind power. It would be insane, positively insane, to abandon the only immediately scalable, proven, successful, low pollution option we have. If we abandoned every form of energy that lead to loss of lives and land because of a failure there would be NO energy systems whatsoever. The result of course, would be total impoverishment and death on a scale on which Chernobyl could not possibly measure.

Fortunately the world has not had this reaction. Engineers have looked at Chernobyl in the only possibly sensible way: They've done responsible failure analysis and incorporated it into future plans. This is part of the reason that the accident has not been repeated for almost 18 years, during which the release millions of tons of serious pollutants have been avoided through nuclear operations. The dangers the planet faces are so extreme, that I am infinitely relieved that this has been the (appropriate) response.

You'd think the site was riddled with "Eradicate nuclear power from the face of the Earth" banners on every page.

I didn't get the impression this was propaganda at all; Just a woman's visit to the evacuated areas around Chernobyl. She even showed thriving vegetation and mentioned the apparently healthy wildlife in the area.

if not propaganda, then perhaps you can provide answers to these questions?

point #1: how/why did/is this rather attractive kid allowed to drive around the "dead zone" apparently at will?

this behavior is at odds with the experience of a couple of colleagues of mine (microbiologists/genetic toxicologists) who spent almost two years trying to get permission to enter the chernobyl area (about 10 years ago) and finally gave up trying to cut through the red tape.

well, upon reading the essay this point is addressed - she indeed did get "special" permission - by claiming to be the daughter of a scientist herself. from my experience, scientists themselves have a hell of time getting in, why should it be any easier for their children? perhaps it was easier in this case specifically because she was granted access to create an heart-rending photo-essay for dissemination on the internet?



point #2: if it's not propaganda, why are blantantly untrue statements made by overstating death by many-thousand-fold?

• The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel and without proper regard for safety.

• The resulting steam explosion and fire released at least five percent of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind.

• Some 31 people were killed, and there have since been around ten deaths from thyroid cancer due to the accident.

• An authoritative UN report in 2000 concluded that there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to most people exposed.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm


The 1986 reactor accident at Chernobyl in the then U.S.S.R. was the worst in the history of nuclear energy; and too many people have died and been injured as a result. The myth is that the deaths have run into the tens of thousands: even as high as 125,000 has been quoted. In 1991 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was quoting 10,000 to 15,000 immediate deaths, without qualification. The facts are that 31 people died as an immediate result of the accident and fighting the resulting fire (28 from radiation injuries, two from non-radiation blast injuries and one due to a coronary thrombosis), and 134 were diagnosed with acute radiation syndrome. Of the latter, 14 people have since died, but their deaths were not necessarily attributable to radiation exposure. In addition, about 800 cases of thyroid cancers have been reported in children, of whom three have died. The total of 48 deaths, tragic as it is, has to be compared with the hundreds that die in other natural and man-caused disasters.

http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Howbad.htm


somehow, if she really were the child of a scientist, i doubt that she would be making such wildly inaccurate claims of deaths in the hundreds of thousands. this point raises suspicions about her "cover story" that explains why she was allowed access to the site in the first place (i.e., being the daughter of a scientist).



point #3: what's the intention of these alleged propagandists?:

well, considering the following story i see two possibities - (a) pressure to shut down the remaining chernobyl plant (which i believe is now shut down?) and/or (a) to try to drum up some western money to compensate the desparately cash-short ukranian gov/t for doing (a).

UKRAINE’S government yesterday ordered the Chernobyl nuclear power plant to close by the end of the year.
The government decision followed pledges by President Leonid Kuchma to shut the plant, site of the world’s worst nuclear accident in 1986.
The Cabinet ordered the Fuel and Energy Ministry to work out a general plan for closing Chernobyl within three months.
After that, a more detailed programme has to be devised within six months.
Kuchma promised United States’ Energy Secretary Bill Richardson last month that the plant would be shut down this year.
But Kuchma did not give a definite closing date and reiterated that Chernobyl would close only once American, Ukrainian and other international experts work out a compensation deal.
The government’s decision did not make such a requirement but did recommend negotiations to ensure full and proper implementation of a 1995 aid memorandum. Under the 1995 deal with the G 7, Ukraine promised to close Chernobyl in exchange for aid.
But the former Soviet republic repeatedly delayed the closure, saying it did not receive the money.
Ukraine, which gets about 40% of its electricity from Chernobyl and four other nuclear plants, has been seeking funds to help it complete two new nuclear reactors as compensation for Chernobyl’s closure.
Environmental groups have urged Ukraine to find alternative sources of energy, and critics have long accused it of using Chernobyl as leverage to get money from the West.
Chernobyl’s reactor No 4 exploded and caught fire during a test in 1986, covering much of Europe with a radioactive cloud.
The Ukrainian government has blamed at least 8,000 deaths on the disaster.
Three of Chernobyl’s four reactors are now permanently shut down, leaving only one reactor in operation.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2000/03/30/current/fpage_10.htm

I don't get the impression your links are all that objective.

preferably using the peer-reviewed scientific literature, i'll be happy to reconsider my position and make any necessary retractions.

i'm just mightily suspicious of any "scientist" who claims hundreds of thousands of deaths from chernobyl when the scientific literature reports dozens of fatalities. believe me (or not), if any scientist had proof of such large numbers of deaths, he or she would be very eager to publish it(and scientific journals would be happy enough to publish it, too - sensationalism sells whereever it pops up - however in the case of scientific journals, it must be sensationalism backed up by some modicum of fact) - that'd definitely be a career-making paper.

of web links from The Uranium Information Centre ("Information on nuclear energy for electricity, and uranium for it") and a pro-nuke author ("I believe that nuclear energy is the energy source of choice for many applications.").

I can't justify the numbers in Elena's web site (on one page she implies 3,100 villagers died, and in another she states official and unofficial death tolls range from 300 to 400,000). However, the facts she states about radiation and its enduring effects are consistent with what I learned in my public school science classes.

This site is about the photographs. I found the stark images of abandoned cities unsettling. I suppose it's possible she intentionally avoided photographing a new shopping mall or bustling day care center, but I would be surprised if there was any new development in the area.

Regarding the spooky headless doll - if she planted it for effect, then shame on her. If she merely photographed what she found, that is what photojournalists do.

first, about the reliability of the information:

the information seemed reliable based on the following statements about the "Uranium Information Centre ("Information on nuclear energy for electricity, and uranium for it")"

Britannica editors have selected the UIC web site as "one of the most valuable and reliable on the Internet" ... "when reviewed for quality, accuracy of content, presentation and usability", and it forms part of the Encyclopaedia Britannica web reference network.

Finally, before any briefing paper is published, or extensively revised, it is reviewed by someone expert in the subject matter to ensure that there are no errors or oversights. The Centre therefore can vouch for and support anything it publishes, and unreservedly offers to correct promptly anything that might be shown as wrong or misleading in what it publishes.

http://www.uic.com.au/about.htm

so if you find any factual errors, i'd be delighted to let these people know (in interests of fully disclosure, i've found that organizations will often send you a free t-shirt or coffee mug for your trouble, so i wouldn't blame you for contacting them directly, however).


second, in reference (again) to the posters who laud the "documentary" nature of the photoessay - shouldn't a documentary present a balanced perspective?

(a) by perhaps including a discussion of the benefits of chernobyl:




Wildlife Take Refuge in Chernobyl's Wasteland

The site of the world's worst nuclear accident has become one of Europe's prime wildlife habitats, according to a report in the London Independent. In 1986, the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl in the Ukraine exploded and burned, releasing clouds of radioactive gases and particles that spread across Europe, contaminating soil, water, and farms as far away as Norway. Contaminated livestock and crops had to be destroyed, and 135,000 people were evacuated from the most intensely contaminated areas near the plant. Now, just 14 years later, wildlife ecologists have found some of Europe's most endangered species living in the Chernobyl area, including cranes, eagles, wild boar, roe deer, wolves, badgers, otters, and lynx. The scientists have found little evidence of disease or reproductive failure in the animals observed.

http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_map/articles/article_75.mhtml



(b) another issue would be much more serious environmental contamination in the former soviet union as the result of weapons programs (just like as here in the usa where cold war weapons development has left orders-of-magnitude more serious environmental consequences than commercial power generation has):

Information about the consequences of human exposure to radiation in the former Soviet Union has recently become available. These data add new insights and provide possible answers to several important questions regarding radiation and its impact on occupational and public health. The 1986 Chernobyl accident initiated a major and early increase in childhood thyroid cancer that resulted from ingestion of iodine-131 (131I) by young children living in the most heavily contaminated areas of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia. No significant additional cancer or other adverse medical effects have yet been reported in the affected populations and among clean-up workers. Major psychological stress independent of radiation dose has been observed in those people thought to be exposed.

During the early days of the atomic energy program in the former Soviet Union, some unfortunate events occurred. The country's first atomic test in Semipalatinsk in 1949 exposed over 25,000 people downwind from the blast to significant doses of fission products, especially 131I.

During the late 1940s and the early 1950s nuclear material production facilities were developed near Chelyabinsk in the South Ural Mountains, which resulted in major releases into the environment and significant overexposures for thousands of workers and nearby populations. Chronic radiation sickness was observed early in exposed workers, and increases in leukemia and other cancers were also reported. The series of plutonium inhalation-related lung cancers and fatalities among workers exposed in that first decade appears to be unique. Long-term consequences of chronic radiation sickness and four decades of follow-up are being described for the first time. -- Environ Health Perspect 105(Suppl 6):1385-1391 (1997)


http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1997/Suppl-6/goldman-full.html

Support wildlife - blow up more nuke plants!

Seriously, though, Elena doesn't deny wildlife is thriving: "This hellish inferno became a sort of paradise for wild animals - at least on the surface." She elaborates on several species that have thrived.

I don't know if you're posting erroneous information. Perhaps they have stated all of their facts correctly. I am still am suspicious that they restrict their reporting to facts that support their agenda.

Now I'm sure that this wouldn't compare with a cute web site showing pictures of children's dolls with their heads bit off, but there's no accounting for perception of what is and is not "propaganda." Nevertheless, not that I expect to matter (because the girl on the motorcyle, who was after all given a Chernobyl pass by "daddy" is kind of cute too), here is a list of Robert Baker's scientific publications on Chernobyl:

Publications on Chornobyl

Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University



1. Matson, C. W., B. E. Rodgers, R. K. Chesser and R. J. Baker. 2000. Genetic diversity of Clethrionomys glareolus populations from highly contaminated sites in the Chornobyl region,Ukraine. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 19:2130-2135.

2. Rodgers, B. E. and R. J. Baker. 2000. Frequencies of micronuclei in bank voles from zones of high radiation at Chernobyl, Ukraine. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 19:1644-1649.

3. Baker, R. J. and R. K. Chesser. 2000. The Chornobyl nuclear disaster and subsequent creation of a wildlife preserve. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 19:1231-1232.

4. Chesser, R. K. et al. 1999. Concentrations and Dose Rate Estimates of 134, 137Cesium and 90Strontium in Small Mammals at Chornobyl, Ukraine. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 19:305-312.

5. Makova, K.D., A. Nekrutenko and R.J. Baker. 2000. Evolution of microsatellite alleles in four species of mice (genus Apodemus). Journal of Molecular Evolution 51:166-172.

6. Nekrutenko, A. Makova, K.D. and R.J. Baker. 2000. Isolation of binary species-specific PCR-based markers and their value for diagnostic applications. Gene 249:47-51.

7. Baker, R.J., J. A. DeWoody, A. J. Wright and R. K. Chesser. 1999. On the utility of heteroplasmy in genotoxic studies: an example from Chornobyl. Ecotoxicology. 8:301-309.

8. Makova, K. D., J. C. Patton, E. Yu. Krysanov, R. K. Chesser, and R. J. Baker. 1999. Microsatellite markers in wood mouse and striped field mouse (genus Apodemus). Molecular Ecology. 7:247-255.

9. DeWoody, J. A., R. K. Chesser and R. J. Baker. 1999. A translocated mitochondrial cytochrome b pseudogene in voles (Rodentia: Microtus). Journal of Molecular Evolution. 48:380-382.

10. Baker, R. J., K. D. Makova and R. K. Chesser. 1999. Microsatellites indicate high frequency of multiple paternity in genus Apodemus (Rodentia). Molecular Ecology. 8:107-111.

11. Nekrutenko, A., K. D. Makova, R. K. Chesser, and R. J. Baker. 1999. Representational differences analysis to distinguish cryptic species. Molecular Ecology 8:1235-1238.

12. DeWoody, J. A. 1999. Nucleotide variation in the p53 tumor-suppressor gene of voles from Chernobyl, Ukraine. Mutation Research. 439:25-36.

13. Dallas, C. E., S.F.Lingenfelser, J. T. Lingenfelser, K. Holloman, C. H. Jagoe, J. A. Kind, R. K. Chesser and M. H. Smith . 1998. Flow cytometric analysis of red and white blood cell DNA in fish from Chernobyl-contaminated ponds in the Ukraine. Ecotoxicology.7:211-219.

14. Jagoe, C. H., R. K. Chesser, M. H. Smith, M. D. Lomakin, S. K. Lingenfelser, and C. E. Dallas. 1998. Levels of cesium, mercury and lead in fish, and cesium in pond sediments in an inhabited region of the Ukraine near Chernobyl. Environmental Pollution 98: 223-232.

15. Jagoe, C.H., C. E. Dallas, R. K. Chesser, M. H. Smith, S. K. Lingenfelser, J. T. Lingenfelser, K. Holloman, and M. D.. Lomakin. 1998. Contamination near Chernobyl: radiocesium, lead and mercury in fish and sediment radiocesium from waters within the 10 km zone. Ecotoxicology 7: 1-9.

16. Nekrutenko, A., Hillis, D.M., Patton, J.C., Bradley R.D., and R.J. Baker. 1998. Cytosolic Isocitrate Dehydrogenase in Humans, Mice, and Voles and Phylogenetic Analysis of the Enzyme Family. Mol.Biol.Evol. 15(12):1674-1684

17. Baker, R.J., R.A. Van Den Bussche, A.J. Wright, L.E. Wiggins, M.J. Hamilton, E.P. Reat, M.H. Smith, M.D. Lomakin, and R.K. Chesser. 1997. High levels of genetic change in rodents of Chernobyl. Nature. 390:100.

18. Lingenfelser, S. K., C. E. Dallas, C. H. Jagoe, R. K. Chesser, M. H. Smith, and M. D. Lomakin. 1997. Variation in blood cell DNA in Carassius carassius from ponds near Chernobyl, Ukraine. Ecotoxicology 6:187-203.

19. Chesser, R. K. and R. J. Baker. 1996. Life Continues at Chernobyl. La Recherche. 286:30-31. (in French).

20. Baker, R.J., M.J. Hamilton, R.A. Van Den Bussche, L.E. Wiggins, D.W. Sugg, M.H. Smith, M.D. Lomakin, S.P. Gaschak, E.G. Bundova, G.A. Rudenskaya, and R.K. Chesser. 1996. Small mammals from the most radioactive sites near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Journal of Mammalogy. 77:155-170.

21. Baker, R.J., R.A. Van Den Bussche, A.J. Wright, L.E. Wiggins, M.J. Hamilton, E.P. Reat, M.H. Smith, M.D. Lomakin, and R.K. Chesser. 1996. Accelerated mutation rate in native rodents from a polluted site at Chernobyl. Nature. 380:707-708.

22. Dallas, C. E., C. H. Jagoe, S. K. Fisher, K. A. Holloman, R. K. Chesser, and M. H. Smith. 1995. Evaluation of genotoxicity in wild organisms due to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. In, Animal World and Ecosystems in Conditions of Radioactive Pollution. Ecology of Industrial Regions 1:44-54.

23. Sugg, D.W., J. W. Bickham, J.A. Brooks, M. D. Lomakin, C. H. Jagoe, C. E. Dallas, M.H. Smith, R. J. Baker, and R. K. Chesser. 1996. DNA damage and radiocesium in channel catfish from Chernobyl. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 15:1057-1063.

24. Dallas, C. E., C. H. Jagoe, S. K. Fisher, K. A. Holloman, R. K. Chesser, and M. H. Smith. 1996. Evaluation of genotoxicity in wild organisms due to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. In, Animal World and Ecosystems in Conditions of Radioactive Pollution. Nauka Science Publishers, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).

25. Dallas, C. E., C. H. Jagoe, S. K. Fisher, K. A. Holloman, R. K. Chesser, and M. H. Smith. 1995. Evaluation of genotoxicity in wild organisms due to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. In, Animal World and Ecosystems in Conditions of Radioactive Pollution. Ecology of Industrial Regions. 1:44-54.

MANUSCRIPTS (IN PRESS AND IN PROGRESS)

25. Rodgers, B. E., J. K. Wickliffe, C. J. Phillips, R. K. Chesser and R. J. Baker. Experimental exposure of naïve bank voles, Clethrionomys glareolus, to the Chornobyl environment: A test of radioresistance. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. In press.

26. Chesser, R. K., B. E. Rodgers, J. K. Wickliffe, C. J. Phillips, S. Gaschak and R. J. Baker. Accumulation of 137Cesium and 90Strontium through abiotic and biotic pathways in rodents at Chornobyl. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. In press.

27. Rodgers, B. E., R. K. Chesser, J. K. Wickliffe, C. J. Phillips and R. J. Baker. Sub-chronic exposure of BALB and C57BL strains of Mus musculus to the radioactive environment of the Chornobyl exclusion zone. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. In Review.

28. Wiggins, L. E., R. A. Van Den Bussche, M. J. Hamilton, R. K. Chesser and R. J. Baker. Analysis of heterochomatin in voles (Microtus sp.) from Chornobyl. Journal of Heredity. Submitted.

29. Wicklife, J.W., B.E. Rodgers, R.K. Chesser and R.J. Baker. Assessing the genotoxicity of chronic, environmental irradiation using mitochondrial DNA heteroplasmy in the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus) at Chornobyl Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. Submitted .

30. Baker, R.J., A.M. Bickham, M.Bondarkov, S.Gashsak, C.W.Matson, B.E. Rodgers,J.W. Wicklife and R.K. Chesser. Consequences of polluted environments on population structure: The bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus) at Chornobyl. Invited paper Ecotoxicology. In Press.

31. Rodgers, B.E. and L.K. Baker. An examination of chromosome damage in residents of Slavutych Ukraine and radiation workers at Chornobyl. In Manuscript.

It is very nice to see that wildlife thrives throughout the exclusion zone. It helps prove my belief that Mother Nature will see to it that life will continue on our planet long after we've thoroughly trashed the environment and our civilization via global warming, nuclear exchange, or any of the many other possible catastrophes that we might unleash through our carelessness.

While travel through the zone won't cause a breakout of facial tumors, there is nothing on Baker's website to suggest that I would want to live or work there. Indeed the science is convincing as more than a few of the authors you cite document genetic mutations.

The economic and human costs of Chernobyl are immense. Proponents of nuclear power dismiss the warning of Chernobyl by blaming the accident on bad technology and poor training.

Use the dimensions of the exclusion zone as an overlay on any nuclear plant site in the US. That is a pretty good indication of the potential for disaster. It is easy to say it just can't happen but, to put it simply, Murphy's Law has not been revoked. Or to put it more crudely, shit happens. It is difficult to come up with a worse scenario than a Chernobyl-like accident.

Citing the serious pollution problems caused by burning coal is a poor excuse for building new nuclear plants. Coal plants pollute because we have failed to insist that the government require the installation of technology that would remove the vast majority of harmful pollutants emitted from burning coal.

Air pollution is all about money and politics. The technology has existed for some time to drastically reduce the mercury and particulate pollution from coal plants. It’s not even that expensive, especially in comparison to the money being spent in Iraq, ostensibly to protect American citizens. Meanwhile millions suffer from the effects of air pollution because to fix the problem would be “too expensive”.

god only knows how many people are dying there due to fossil fuel-related issues:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x7350

in any event, like you mention, much of the mess could be cleared up if society was willing to spend the $$$$s necessary to do so.

on a different issue,comparing the chernobyl disaster with us nuclear power plants ("Use the dimensions of the exclusion zone as an overlay on any nuclear plant site in the US") is just a tad dishonest, considering that reactors of the chernobyl design are not operating in the usa.

and about the mutations you mention - so what? can you document any deleterious health effects? probably not, considering that the mutation that are reported occur in non-coding regions of the genome (the so-called "junk DNA).

interestingly, if the mutations were to actually impact coded genes - and thereby increase genetic diversity - perhaps that would be benefical considering that the following story illustrates that certain organisms have deliberately adopted the strategy of switching from asexual to sexual reproduction - the net of effect of which is to increase genetic diversity:

Amorous worms reveal effects of Chernobyl

WORMS contaminated by radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident have started having sex with each other instead of on their own. According to Ukrainian scientists, they may have changed their sexual behaviour to increase their chances of survival. It's one of the first pieces of direct evidence on how wildlife is affected by radioactive pollution.

Although there is a wealth of evidence on the impact of ionising radiation on humans, its effects on wildlife are poorly understood. In the past the International Commission on Radiological Protection, which recommends radiation safety limits, has set no limits to protect wildlife, assuming that as long as humans were protected, animals and plants would be too.

But in recent years the ICRP has abandoned this assumption and launched an investigation into how best to safeguard "non-human species". Many researchers are focusing on how wildlife has been affected by the radioactivity that spewed from the exploded reactor at Chernobyl in Ukraine, 17 years ago this month.

Gennady Polikarpov and Victoria Tsytsugina from the Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas in Sevastopol studied the reproduction of certain sedimentary worms that are vital to aquatic ecosystems (Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, vol 66, p 141). They compared the behaviour of three species in a lake near Chernobyl with the same species in a lake 20 kilometres away. The lakes had similar temperatures and chemical composition, but the worms in the Chernobyl lake had received 20 times as much radiation as those in the other lake. The researchers found some remarkable changes in the worms' sexual habits.

Two species had switched from asexual to sexual reproduction, as they are capable of doing. The proportion of Nais pardalis seeking partners for sex was 5 per cent in the normal lake but 22 per cent in the Chernobyl lake, while the proportions of Nais pseudobtusa doing the same were 10 per cent and 23 per cent respectively. However, the third species, Dero obtusa, showed double the rate of asexual reproduction in the polluted lake.

Polikarpov thinks the worms have switched to sexual reproduction in an attempt to protect themselves from the radiation. Sexual reproduction allows natural selection to promote genes that offer better protection from radiation damage, and "the resistance of populations as a whole will be increased", he suggests. Carmel Mothersill from the Dublin Institute of Technology, one of the experts helping the ICRP develop its new policy on protecting wildlife, agrees. "It is a plausible mechanism," she says.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-04/ns-awr040903.php

"on a different issue,comparing the chernobyl disaster with us nuclear power plants ("Use the dimensions of the exclusion zone as an overlay on any nuclear plant site in the US") is just a tad dishonest, considering that reactors of the chernobyl design are not operating in the usa."

I only wish to demonstrate the worst-case effect from a Chernobyl-scale radioactive release from a US plant. Yes the US plants are different and better. Yes the odds are extremely low but not zero. TMI was probably the closest any US plant came to a catastrophic accident, although there are a few contenders. The point is there is no cleanup from such an event.

"and about the mutations you mention - so what? can you document any deleterious health effects? probably not, considering that the mutation that are reported occur in non-coding regions of the genome (the so-called "junk DNA)."

So what? Tell anybody who suffers a genetic disorder so what. For the most part, the results from genetic mutation are not pleasant. Sure it all depends what gene, and even which part of the gene. Mutate your own gene pool at your own peril.

Like I said I don't think many of us would volunteer to live in the exclusion zone.

tends to have some unfortunate (and give-your-head-a-shake) outcomes. more specifically, people tend to way over-estimate (and be concerned about) the chance of rare events occurring.

for example, in the last decade - terrorism has killed 3,000 americans whereas "petty" crime has killed 300,000 - yet what event "changed everything"?

an airliner crash is sure to generate huge headlines, yet within a week of even the most deadly crash - more americans have died (more or less) invisibly and unnoticed in automobile accidents. rather bizarre, indeed.

on the flip side, people's "worry" of rare events (in reverse) is what keeps the myriad state lotteries functioning.

so, everyday scores of americans die from "conventional" energy sources, one at a time and once again more or less invisibly. no one cares. however, if a nuclear power plant accident were to equal the death toll of even one day's air pollution toll - we'd never ever hear the end of it (as Chernobyl shows). once again - that seems just a bit bizarre - until you consider the constant (what i claim are) propaganda efforts against nuclear power. the established powers that be have a lot invested in maintaining the status quo in milking the fossil fuels to the very end - and surely don't their cash cow to disappear. lucky for them, they can prey on people's lack of sophistication wrt risk analysis.

in the grand scheme, mutations are what allowed humans to exist at all.

however, on an individual basis, i sure do recognize that it is incredibly callous to discount the potential health impact of mutations. so an relevant point to consider might be "what are the sources of mutations suffered by humans?"

it turns out that radiation-caused (talking about ionizing radiation here, not uv) mutations are rather difficult to actually acquire. that's because above a certain threshold you'll die of acute radiation poisoning, and below a different threshold, your cells are quite well equipped to deal the damage caused by ionizing radiation because it is chemically the same as that caused by natural metabolism. consequently, there is a fairly narrow window where radiation-caused mutations actually occur.

for more information on how ionizing radiation interacts with biological molecules, go here: http://www.photobiology.com/educational/len/index.htm

and for a synopsis of how a cell can guard against this damage, go here: http://www.lfr.com/news/EBulletins/e-bulletin016.htm


by contrast, incomplete combustion products of fossil fuels are laden with DNA-damaging agents. moreover, since these compounds do not occur naturally in a way that organisms were constantly exposed throughout the evolution of life, repair mechanisms to deal with this DNA damage are much less effective, and therefore breathing houston's air is much more likely to cause mutations than living in the chernobyl "dead" zone.

but as long as people go on dying and becoming ill one by one instead of in a single event, apparently a huge toll is acceptable and the anti-nuclear energy propaganda should proceed apace.

http://store4.yimg.com/I/thundermall_1780_35073204
http://store.thundermall.com/simblinfissq.html
It’s Mutastic!! At long last, Springfield’s unofficial mascot, Blinky the mutant radioactive fish, has been given his due. Dark Horse serves him up in all his three-eyed glory, with a super squishy body,sparkle-infested goo interior light-up plutonium rod floating in his highly radioactive gut.


I wonder what would have happened if the 911 terrorists had rammed their planes into nuclear reactors...I like to see that map...just think of the new glow in the dark Nation Parks we could have.

happy, happy...joy, joy

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=43826