Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chernobyl Exclusion Zone - A Thriving Haven For Nature

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chernobyl Exclusion Zone - A Thriving Haven For Nature

    Chernobyl disaster: Exclusion zone around plant has become wildlife haven 'on par with nature reserves'

    The exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant, which was evacuated in 1986 after a devastating explosion and fire, has become a wildlife haven on a par with heavily-protected nature reserves, scientists have found.

    A detailed survey of the huge forested area around the stricken plant has revealed that it is teeming with large animals such elk, roe deer, red deer, wild boar and wolves despite being contaminated with radioactive fallout

    This doesn’t mean radiation is good for wildlife, just that the effects of human habitation, including hunting, farming and forestry, are a lot worse

    Professor Jim Smith,*Portsmouth University

    The scientists found no evidence to support earlier studies suggesting that wildlife in the region had suffered from the radiation released after the Chernobyl accident of 1986 which sent plumes of radioactive emissions across much of northern Europe, causing radiation “hotspots” within the exclusion zone.

    Following the disaster, more than 116,000 local residents were evacuated from the zone around Chernobyl, which covers some 4,200 square kilometres (1,622 square miles), with only key construction workers and nuclear staff allowed into the site to safeguard the stricken reactors.

    The absence of human activity in the exclusion zone has benefited the wildlife of the region more than any possible damage it may have suffered as a result of coming into contact with radioactive elements, the researchers said.

    The population of wolves in the exclusion zone was found to be seven times higher than in nature reserves

    “It’s very likely that wildlife numbers at Chernobyl are much higher than they were before the accident. This doesn’t mean radiation is good for wildlife, just that the effects of human habitation, including hunting, farming and forestry, are a lot worse,” said Professor Jim Smith of Portsmouth University, who led the study.


    Chernobyl disaster: Exclusion zone around plant has become wildlife haven 'on par with nature reserves' | Nature | Environment | The Independent

  • #2
    Is it just me or does it seem like we may have possibly over exaggerated the dangers? Seems to me that it's actually a healthier place now then it was when humans were around..

    Comment


    • #3
      No. It just means that humans are worse for wildlife than even nuclear radiation.

      Comment


      • #4
        The animals and vegetation seem to have 0 ill effects. So why would would it be harmful to me or you?

        Comment


        • #5
          It doesn't say that the animals had zero ill effects. It just says that the ill effects were less than what humans were doing.

          Comment


          • #6
            It seems to me that they are healthy and thriving. It says in the article that scientist have found no evidence of premature death or sickness..

            Comment


            • #7
              It is possible that the carcinogenic effects of radiation take a long time to develop. So, someone growing up in Chernobyl may see 5 years or 10 years taken off their life span, for example. So, a person who may live up to 70 normally would die at 60 or whatever, but a deer that only lives normally to be 10 years old may not live long enough to suffer the ill effects.

              Comment


              • #8
                Not exactly the same thing as above topic but kind of related.

                Could contaminated land actually be good for trees? | EurekAlert! Science News

                Comment

                Working...
                X