3 ms·

That the Chernobyl exclusion zone has become an animal sanctuary is held out as an example of ability of ecosystems to tolerate low-level radioactivity. After t

That the Chernobyl exclusion zone has become an animal sanctuary is held out as an example of ability of ecosystems to tolerate low-level radioactivity. After the humans moved out, the animals flourished. But I have another theory. Maybe the ecosystem isn't doing all that well. It just appears so in comparison with conditions when human activity dominated. Compared to an uncontaminated, undisturbed ecosystem, it's just doing so-so. The theory being that the presence of human activity is worse for ecosystems than low-level radiation. James Lovelock argued that we could save the rain forests from the ravages of man by burying nuclear waste in them. [1] That implicitly suggests that a little radiation is better for wildlife than human presence, at least according to Lovelock. 1 https://www.wired.com/2011/04/ff-chernobyl/ https://www.wired.com/2011/04/ff-chernobyl/

gizmo686 3y ago
Wouldn't we expect ecosystems to tolerate low level radiation. Even among humans, the concern is long term cancer risk. It is a feat of modern society that humans routinely live long enough for cancer to be a major concern. Most wildlife would probably be dead long before the radiation can kill them. Not sure how this applies to life like trees. I assume that they are more resilient to radiation in general, as they can live indefinitely, whereas humans seem to have finite time before cancer becomes inevitable.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  We would expect them to tolerate background radiation, but evolutionarily I don't see any reason why higher radiation tolerance would be selected for. Certain around the time of things like the Permian/Triassic extinction event, organisms with a higher tolerance for UV would tend to be selected for, but otherwise I would expect other pressures to be more influential.
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    My hunch on that is it might not need to be selected for, cells having largely the same features. Most animals don't live as long, so they have less time to develop cancers. (Plants and fungi of course get cancers as well but the cells are immobile avoiding metastasis and they don't have single points of failure like organs.) But it's just a hunch.
rcme 3y ago
“Tolerate” as in survive, but the wildlife is clearly impacted.
shrubble 3y ago
I would worry that animals would accumulate radiation in their bodies over time, similar to how tuna can end up with large amounts of mercury or other toxic metals.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  Only if it bioaccumulates faster than the half-life of the isotope reduces its presence. Strontium-90, e.g. has a half life of 28.5 years and a biological half life of 30 years http://hpschapters.org/northcarolina/NSDS/strontium.pdf http://hpschapters.org/northcarolina/NSDS/strontium.pdf
jhbadger 3y ago
One of the main ways that radioactivity affects health is cancer. While there are some forms of cancer in both human and non-human animals that affect the youth, more typically they occur in late adulthood. From the standpoint of non-humans, that might not be so bad as they have already reproduced and raised their young. Humans on the other hand are understandably upset about having their golden years cut short.
rewmie 3y ago
> That the Chernobyl exclusion zone has become an animal sanctuary is held out as an example of ability of ecosystems to tolerate low-level radioactivity. I'm not sure what's the meaning of that statement. Chernobyl might have become an animal sanctuary, but it is also showcases a massive drop in abundance of some species, and a ‘severely depressed’ leaf litter decomposition. The life expectancy of stray dogs in chernobyl is lower than 5-6 years. So Chernobyl is an animal sanctuary and wildlife haven, but it's not in the coloquial sense. Human intervention is almost non existent, but the few species that manage to survive are enduring negative consequences, and it just so happens that their reproduction rate is high enough to ensure replacing.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  > The life expectancy of stray dogs in chernobyl is lower than 5-6 years. OK, and what's the life expectancy of stray dogs living in the wild that are not in the Chernobyl exclusion zone? I mean, I know that dogs can live 15-18 years as pets, but I bet life expectancy in the wild is a lot lower. I don't have hard numbers, though.
cmarschner 3y ago
Flourished? Well I read the stray dogs you find there are very young, they die at a young age. Which has made them an attractive study for how quickly their genes adapt. Apparently many of the features that domesticated dogs had from human-controlled breeding, like short snouts, have regressed back to their wild ancestors.
waselighis 3y ago
Some animal species in Chernobyl (not all) have higher levels of antioxidants than their non-Chernobyl counterparts. > James Lovelock argued that we could save the rain forests from the ravages of man by burying nuclear waste in them. Interesting thought, but would be a horrible thing to do to the indigenous peoples of the rain forests.
cafard 3y ago
The Hanford area in Washington state is said to have a lot of wildlife also.

gizmo686 3y ago

Wouldn't we expect ecosystems to tolerate low level radiation. Even among humans, the concern is long term cancer risk. It is a feat of modern society that humans routinely live long enough for cancer to be a major concern. Most wildlife would probably be dead long before the radiation can kill them. Not sure how this applies to life like trees. I assume that they are more resilient to radiation in general, as they can live indefinitely, whereas humans seem to have finite time before cancer becomes inevitable.

cratermoon 3y ago
We would expect them to tolerate background radiation, but evolutionarily I don't see any reason why higher radiation tolerance would be selected for. Certain around the time of things like the Permian/Triassic extinction event, organisms with a higher tolerance for UV would tend to be selected for, but otherwise I would expect other pressures to be more influential.
- Clamchop 3y ago
  My hunch on that is it might not need to be selected for, cells having largely the same features. Most animals don't live as long, so they have less time to develop cancers. (Plants and fungi of course get cancers as well but the cells are immobile avoiding metastasis and they don't have single points of failure like organs.) But it's just a hunch.

rcme 3y ago

“Tolerate” as in survive, but the wildlife is clearly impacted.

shrubble 3y ago

I would worry that animals would accumulate radiation in their bodies over time, similar to how tuna can end up with large amounts of mercury or other toxic metals.

cratermoon 3y ago
Only if it bioaccumulates faster than the half-life of the isotope reduces its presence. Strontium-90, e.g. has a half life of 28.5 years and a biological half life of 30 years http://hpschapters.org/northcarolina/NSDS/strontium.pdf http://hpschapters.org/northcarolina/NSDS/strontium.pdf

jhbadger 3y ago

One of the main ways that radioactivity affects health is cancer. While there are some forms of cancer in both human and non-human animals that affect the youth, more typically they occur in late adulthood. From the standpoint of non-humans, that might not be so bad as they have already reproduced and raised their young. Humans on the other hand are understandably upset about having their golden years cut short.

rewmie 3y ago

> That the Chernobyl exclusion zone has become an animal sanctuary is held out as an example of ability of ecosystems to tolerate low-level radioactivity. I'm not sure what's the meaning of that statement. Chernobyl might have become an animal sanctuary, but it is also showcases a massive drop in abundance of some species, and a ‘severely depressed’ leaf litter decomposition. The life expectancy of stray dogs in chernobyl is lower than 5-6 years. So Chernobyl is an animal sanctuary and wildlife haven, but it's not in the coloquial sense. Human intervention is almost non existent, but the few species that manage to survive are enduring negative consequences, and it just so happens that their reproduction rate is high enough to ensure replacing.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
> The life expectancy of stray dogs in chernobyl is lower than 5-6 years. OK, and what's the life expectancy of stray dogs living in the wild that are not in the Chernobyl exclusion zone? I mean, I know that dogs can live 15-18 years as pets, but I bet life expectancy in the wild is a lot lower. I don't have hard numbers, though.

cmarschner 3y ago

Flourished? Well I read the stray dogs you find there are very young, they die at a young age. Which has made them an attractive study for how quickly their genes adapt. Apparently many of the features that domesticated dogs had from human-controlled breeding, like short snouts, have regressed back to their wild ancestors.

waselighis 3y ago

Some animal species in Chernobyl (not all) have higher levels of antioxidants than their non-Chernobyl counterparts. > James Lovelock argued that we could save the rain forests from the ravages of man by burying nuclear waste in them. Interesting thought, but would be a horrible thing to do to the indigenous peoples of the rain forests.

cafard 3y ago

The Hanford area in Washington state is said to have a lot of wildlife also.