4 ms·

That might be an argument humans aren't endangered by contaminated boar, but is not an argument that the ecosystem isn't threatened. Presumably predators and sc

That might be an argument humans aren't endangered by contaminated boar, but is not an argument that the ecosystem isn't threatened. Presumably predators and scavengers are eating a significant amount of boar and other contaminated meat relative to their body weight.

godelski 3y ago
If you read the second paragraph, this is addressed. If you follow the links in the BBC article you'll find data on the wildlife. The only thing abnormal about population sizes in the area is that there are a larger number of wolves than compared to non-contaminated regions. But we also need to consider that due to the size of this area, that it in essence is akin to the largest nature preserve and has far fewer human visitors. Probably important to remember that humans are a big reason for the decrease in wolf populations in most regions. Fwiw, I did mention that the animal lives are possibly lower quality and definitely shorter lived. So I'm not quite sure what you're rebutting from my comment. It appears that you're just rephrasing part of it but without any source and clear suppositions from a misunderstanding of the data in the first paragraph I wrote.
- maxbond 3y ago
  Your claim is that bioaccumulation is not a problem because a.) It has not reached a level dangerous to humans (through direct consumption) and b.) Life is thriving in Pripyat. a.) is orthogonal, and b.) is encouraging but doesn't establish that there _isn't_ a problem here. Mostly what I take issue to is that you're saying people need to stop being concerned about something, but the reasons you gave didn't really support that conclusion. I dunno if there's a problem here or not really, but I don't think we should dismiss it in this manner. It's sort of like the inverse of fear mongering, though fear mongering is probably more dangerous, so I only mean that directionally and not proportionally (eg I don't take issue nearly as strongly as I would a fear mongering comment, I think your comment is largely fine, but that's what I find objectionable).
  - mlyle 3y ago
    If bioaccumulation hasn't posed a problem yet, it doesn't seem to be too much of a concern. The dose rate near Chernobyl has fallen 2 orders of magnitude. Further, now the vast majority of the activity is Cs-137, which is excreted pretty quickly. Further, the waste is getting buried and further removed from the food chain (though Russia recently stirred up soil there, which isn't ideal).
  - godelski 3y ago
    > Your claim is that bioaccumulation is not a problem because We have decades of living with the results (event was 1986), decades of scientific research (not just reactors, but medicine and space), and high political motivation to demonstrate harm (as it shows the failure of the USSR and communism). That in all this time and with all this money and motivation, we have not gathered data that conclusively says that the bioaccumulation is a problem. That is the basis of my claim: almost 40 years of analysis of the exact event and 80 years of health physics (the study of radiation on humans). Mostly what I take issue to is that you're saying science doesn't matter. At least this is how it comes off. I actually agree that point a and b are orthogonal. The second paragraph is written to address a second point. I have a complaint about a common false fear mongering claim by the article and I also add some information that is about the article's main topic. They don't become a singular argument due to proximity. Paragraph 2's only mention of humans is that they probably shouldn't live there, which is difficult to confuse with "it is safe to live in Chernobyl because bavarian boar, hunted a thousand kilometers away, is safe to eat despite their radiation levels." Forgive me, but it is difficult to not feel frustrated and interpret you as not actually reading what I wrote. Definitely not in good faith.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      You have the political thing backwards. In fact, everybody, from the Soviets over IAEA to European governments did everything they could to down play the impact. Measures covered things like not following up the health of liquidators, nor asking for it. Excluding radiation related health issues from work sicknisses and injuries. Publicly drinking potentially contaminated water on live TV to shownit is save after the public raised concerns. Murking the waters around cancer rate research. The list is incredibly long. The only party that did push against Nuclear were the Greens. And it took them over 20 years to finally get a nuclear exit through in Germany. And as far as thresholds are concerned: we have those for everything, from lead to small dust. Being above it doesn't outright kill people, but it defenitely doesn't improve longterm health. And yes, Bavarian boar has a tendency, in some regions, to be above radiation thresholds. That can be dorectly traced back to Chernobyl. You are trying to deny that by attacking the validity of those thresholds, thresholds that are coming from a ruling party in Bavaria that is in power sonce the 50s, is as pro-nuclear power as they come. I call that a straw man argument if there ever was one. What that means for the safety of the exclusive zone is a different stroy, isn't it? And no, as pointed out above, the health impact of Chernobyl, on everyone from Minsk and Pripyat to the liquidators and half of Western Europe was never really studied.

godelski 3y ago

If you read the second paragraph, this is addressed. If you follow the links in the BBC article you'll find data on the wildlife. The only thing abnormal about population sizes in the area is that there are a larger number of wolves than compared to non-contaminated regions. But we also need to consider that due to the size of this area, that it in essence is akin to the largest nature preserve and has far fewer human visitors. Probably important to remember that humans are a big reason for the decrease in wolf populations in most regions. Fwiw, I did mention that the animal lives are possibly lower quality and definitely shorter lived. So I'm not quite sure what you're rebutting from my comment. It appears that you're just rephrasing part of it but without any source and clear suppositions from a misunderstanding of the data in the first paragraph I wrote.

maxbond 3y ago
Your claim is that bioaccumulation is not a problem because a.) It has not reached a level dangerous to humans (through direct consumption) and b.) Life is thriving in Pripyat. a.) is orthogonal, and b.) is encouraging but doesn't establish that there _isn't_ a problem here. Mostly what I take issue to is that you're saying people need to stop being concerned about something, but the reasons you gave didn't really support that conclusion. I dunno if there's a problem here or not really, but I don't think we should dismiss it in this manner. It's sort of like the inverse of fear mongering, though fear mongering is probably more dangerous, so I only mean that directionally and not proportionally (eg I don't take issue nearly as strongly as I would a fear mongering comment, I think your comment is largely fine, but that's what I find objectionable).
- mlyle 3y ago
  If bioaccumulation hasn't posed a problem yet, it doesn't seem to be too much of a concern. The dose rate near Chernobyl has fallen 2 orders of magnitude. Further, now the vast majority of the activity is Cs-137, which is excreted pretty quickly. Further, the waste is getting buried and further removed from the food chain (though Russia recently stirred up soil there, which isn't ideal).
- godelski 3y ago
  > Your claim is that bioaccumulation is not a problem because We have decades of living with the results (event was 1986), decades of scientific research (not just reactors, but medicine and space), and high political motivation to demonstrate harm (as it shows the failure of the USSR and communism). That in all this time and with all this money and motivation, we have not gathered data that conclusively says that the bioaccumulation is a problem. That is the basis of my claim: almost 40 years of analysis of the exact event and 80 years of health physics (the study of radiation on humans). Mostly what I take issue to is that you're saying science doesn't matter. At least this is how it comes off. I actually agree that point a and b are orthogonal. The second paragraph is written to address a second point. I have a complaint about a common false fear mongering claim by the article and I also add some information that is about the article's main topic. They don't become a singular argument due to proximity. Paragraph 2's only mention of humans is that they probably shouldn't live there, which is difficult to confuse with "it is safe to live in Chernobyl because bavarian boar, hunted a thousand kilometers away, is safe to eat despite their radiation levels." Forgive me, but it is difficult to not feel frustrated and interpret you as not actually reading what I wrote. Definitely not in good faith.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    You have the political thing backwards. In fact, everybody, from the Soviets over IAEA to European governments did everything they could to down play the impact. Measures covered things like not following up the health of liquidators, nor asking for it. Excluding radiation related health issues from work sicknisses and injuries. Publicly drinking potentially contaminated water on live TV to shownit is save after the public raised concerns. Murking the waters around cancer rate research. The list is incredibly long. The only party that did push against Nuclear were the Greens. And it took them over 20 years to finally get a nuclear exit through in Germany. And as far as thresholds are concerned: we have those for everything, from lead to small dust. Being above it doesn't outright kill people, but it defenitely doesn't improve longterm health. And yes, Bavarian boar has a tendency, in some regions, to be above radiation thresholds. That can be dorectly traced back to Chernobyl. You are trying to deny that by attacking the validity of those thresholds, thresholds that are coming from a ruling party in Bavaria that is in power sonce the 50s, is as pro-nuclear power as they come. I call that a straw man argument if there ever was one. What that means for the safety of the exclusive zone is a different stroy, isn't it? And no, as pointed out above, the health impact of Chernobyl, on everyone from Minsk and Pripyat to the liquidators and half of Western Europe was never really studied.