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 reactors 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 its 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 whove been studying the Zone for the past decade, theres 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 whove been studying the Zone since the 1990s put it:
typical human activity (industrialization, farming, cattle raising, collection of firewood, hunting, etc.) is more devastating to biodiversity and abundance of local flora and fauna than is the worst nuclear power plant disaster.
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:
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?
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:
Species richness, abundance and population density of breeding birds decreased with increasing levels of radiation.
Or, if you want that translated into snark:
"It is true that the Chernobyl region gives the appearance of a thriving ecosystem because of its protection from other human activities.
However, when you do controlled ecological studies, what we see is a very clear signature of negative effects of contamination on diversity and abundance of organisms.
We clearly need to be applying scientific method to ecological studies before we can conclude, based on anecdotal observations, that there are no consequences."
All of the scientists involved say that much more research is needed to find out exactly whats going to happen to the animals and plants currently inside the Zone, and that its 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.
PAGE:
1 | 2
Comments
Agata
United Kingdom
September 2004
AUG 17, 2007 04:12 PM
sea
HOPEFUL
Mexico
AUG 17, 2007 04:15 PM
Gerry_D
Los Angeles, CA
May 2003
AUG 17, 2007 04:43 PM
xazapdmytinu
Fort Collins, CO
July 2007
AUG 17, 2007 04:46 PM
OhSoOrdinary
New York, NY
July 2006
AUG 17, 2007 04:49 PM
Kes
USA
August 2006
AUG 17, 2007 06:36 PM
wereduck
I'm lost
July 2007
AUG 17, 2007 07:01 PM
Lockeblade
Australia
May 2007
AUG 17, 2007 07:08 PM
ThatTalentedHack
San Antonio, TX
July 2007
AUG 17, 2007 08:01 PM
SirPsychoSexy
Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004
AUG 17, 2007 08:10 PM
Azkadellia
South Haven, MI
April 2007
AUG 17, 2007 08:17 PM
Moonrabbit
Vancouver, BC
February 2005
AUG 17, 2007 09:45 PM
brett54
Australia
November 2004
AUG 17, 2007 10:30 PM
Clidna
Canada
January 2005
AUG 17, 2007 11:41 PM
Jace
San Francisco, CA
February 2004
AUG 17, 2007 11:47 PM
PAGE:
1 | 2