4 ms·

It seems that this is debatable, as a simple google search turns up completely opposite conclusions, such as this: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-

• konjin 6y ago
  Why not cite an actual paper instead of an interview with someone who 'feels their duty' is to tell us about the dangers of nuclear accidents? >In contrast, our long-term empirical data showed no evidence of a negative influence of radiation on mammal abundance. Relative abundances of elk, roe deer, red deer and wild boar within the Chernobyl exclusion zone are similar to those in four (uncontaminated) nature reserves in the region and wolf abundance is more than 7 times higher. Additionally, our earlier helicopter survey data show rising trends in elk, roe deer and wild boar abundances from one to ten years post-accident. These results demonstrate for the first time that, regardless of potential radiation effects on individual animals, the Chernobyl exclusion zone supports an abundant mammal community after nearly three decades of chronic radiation exposures. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982215009884 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221...