NEWS: How (Not) To Create A Wildlife Refuge: Step One, Blow Up A Nuclear Reactor

CULTURE: How (Not) To Create A Wildlife Refuge: Step One, Blow Up A Nuclear Reactor

Just over 20 years ago, the worst disaster in the history of nuclear power occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union. An attempt to test one of the reactor's safety systems led to the reactor becoming dangerously unstable. The reactor then exploded and caught fire, sending large amounts of radioactive gases and debris into the atmosphere over the next 10 days. While radioactive fallout spread over most of the Northern Hemisphere, the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were hit with the highest levels of contamination. Radiation levels surrounding the plant were so dangerously high that the Soviets ordered a mandatory evacuation of everybody who lived within 18 miles of the reactor site, poetically dubbing the area the "Zone Of Alienation."



To this day, the only people officially allowed within the Zone Of Alienation for more than a one-day sightseeing tour are the people employed to look after the decommissioned Chernobyl power plant and scientists studying the aftermath of the disaster and it's continuing impact on the surrounding environment. Around 350 Ukrainians, known as "self-settlers," have illegally returned to their former homes inside the Zone despite the dangerously high levels of radiation.



One would think that the Zone Of Alienation would be an ash-covered moonscape crawling with hideous mutants, charred trees and low frame rates, but apparently the exact opposite is true. According to scientists who've been studying the Zone for the past decade, there's now a larger and more diverse population of plants and wild animals living inside the Zone than there was before the Chernobyl disaster. Researchers along with visitors and the "self-settlers" have reported seeing growing numbers of wild horses, elk, moose, deer, wolves, wild boars, eagles, foxes, lynx and bears living inside the Zone. Since none of these animals are found in the area surrounding the Zone, some scientists have started referring to the Zone as an unintentional wildlife preserve. There have even been reports that birds are now nesting inside cracks in the concrete enclosure known as "the sarcophagus" that surrounds the remnants of the exploded reactor.



So why do so many animals live and possibly thrive in an area where the radiation levels still remain as much as 100 times higher than normal?



Because almost all of those annoying humans left.



Or as Robert J.Baker and Ronald K.Chesser, two of the researchers who've been studying the Zone since the 1990s put it:

Claims that the long-term ecological impact of the Chernobyl disaster is actually positive has set off a controversy in the scientific community. One side claims that while high levels of radioactivity have negative effects on plants and wildlife, animals have a higher tolerance for radiation than humans. Below those levels any negative effects such as mutations and genetic abnormalities seem to be weeded out through natural selection, as animals harmed by exposure to radiation seem to die out before reaching adulthood. Or as one scientist dubs it, "evolution on steroids."



Environmentalist James Lovelock, a fan of nuclear power, went even further, claiming that perhaps we should try and intentionally create more radioactive wildlife refuges:

Other scientists, such as Anders Moller and Tim Mousseau, claim that the Zone is less like a radioactive Eden and more like a Roach Motel: it looks appealing to animals on the outside, but when they move in things really start to suck. After studying populations of birds both inside and outside the Zone, they came to the conclusion that:

Or, if you want that translated into snark:

All of the scientists involved say that much more research is needed to find out exactly what's going to happen to the animals and plants currently inside the Zone, and that it's difficult to determine what the long-term impact of the Chernobyl disaster will be even 20 years later.



In the meantime, the Ukrainian government has been pitching the Zone as a new place for "eco-tourism," since apparently they overestimated the appeal of a radioactive Soviet-era ghost town as a tourist destination.

...there's now a larger and more diverse population of plants and wild animals living inside the Zone than there was before the Chernobyl disaster...

roughly translated as...





careful now.

i loved those pics. this story has fascinated me for years.

PS

um..... NOO!!!

I agree with Sea - I have been keeping tabs on that place for a while. I might want to check it out - but my balls won't let me.

does anyone else think this sounds like a bad disaster movie plot?

Tards.

Yeah, that's a really, really, really stupid idea.
(really, really, really, really)

Or a GREAT monster movie plot:

"Invasion of the Radioactive Wildlife".

Think positive.

Hahaha... haha yeah... right... nuclear waste attracts animals and helps the plants grow... *wipes a tear away* Excuse me while I go bury some depleted uranium in my vegetable garden.

In all seriousness though, the whole Chernobyl disaster both fascinates and scares the shit out of me at the same time. It's all the more poignant for me because Australia is in the middle of a national debate on whether to go nuclear or not. On one hand, Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel energy and Australia has the largest deposits of uranium in the world which would make it mighty cheap for us. On the other hand, I look at those photos and wonder if it's worth the risk. Either way, the federal election later this year will be the deciding factor as the current Prime Minister is advocating nuclear energy while the Opposition Leader (who looks set to win) is advocating clean coal.

But hell... if nuclear fallout is actually a good thing, bring on the reactors! Looking like <= that would be a small price to pay for a few more birds in my backyard, dont'cha think?

"Could this experience suggest that the best sites for nuclear waste disposal are the tropical forests and other habitats in need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by hungry farmers and greedy developers?"

the only problem with this idea is that greedy developers would hire the same impoverished workers they always do and then we will end up with the worst case scenario:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Radio active zombies OMG!!!!1!!!one!!11oNe!!

more radioactive plz.

kthanx

I like that it's because all the humans left.
Bear: Dude, you see that green haze over there?
Horse: yeah, did you see all the humans go running from it?
Bear: Yeah, it kinda smells funny.
Horse: Dude, who fucking cares? The humans are gone, time to move in...

Yeah, the vegetables end up like those horrible cabbages in The Curse.

Per TeraWatt of power, Nuclear is far and away the safest form of power - not pushing anything, them's is just the facts. Trying to remember the report I heard on 4ZZZ (world's greatest radio station),

Nuclear 8 deaths per TW
Hydro 400 per TW
Coal 800 per TW

That was taking into account the mining, transport and pollution effects. Obviously, Hydro looks bad as the TW is low, whereas Nuclear looks good as it produces vast amounts of power ..... which is the attraction.
Even a tenth of those number is appalling.

But being realistic, a group of engineers drove the Chernobyl reactor into critical, over-riding the safety warnings, then when it went pear shaped, they tipped it over the edge by driving the moderating rods into the near critical pile .... which really sent it critical.

Well, that was how my lecturers described it to me during my Physics degree.

If the populace agrees that CO2 is causing global warming, then Australia has to do something. We are the per capita WORST polluters. Many Euro zone countries use Nuclear and have attractive numbers for CO2 pollution.

Clean coal is a farce.

Did anyone else think of the Simpsons while reading this? (Blinky, Tomacco, etc.)

Maybe it was just me...

I've been fascinated with Chernobyl since our high school history teacher used a bunch of pictures when he was teaching us about WWII, nuclear weapons, and proliferation. The fact that it exploded and has remained virtually untouched since then is a really interesting peek, at least for me, into what the planet might be like if something like that happened on a global scale. It's a very surreal, fantastic, eerie but majestic seeming place that I'd love to visit someday.

Possum Death Spree

Radioactive mutants.

It's about damn time!

lol, wut?

FEEEEEEEEEEED Me!

YES!!

The BBC's flagship science program Horizon ran a great program on the aftermath of Chernobyl last year which mentioned the growth of plant and animal life in the exclusion zone, it also covers the effects on humans and why the number of predicted deaths was so high compared to the actual death toll, more info here
Horizon - Nuclear Nightmares

Hell yeah!

On a serious note though:
Chernobyl wasn't the only nuclear disaster in the USSR either. The Kystym Explosion in 1957 was almost as bad and not the only disaster to have hit the area, now considered the most polluted on Earth.

It's amazing there is any wild life left in Russia.

There was an article in the new scientist last year about what would happen if people just disapperared from the planet. The gist was it was better for everyone apart for Yorkshire terriers, the chernobyl story just illustrates how adaptable animals are.