23 ms·
Forests Around Chernobyl Aren’t Decaying Properly
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- keithpeter 13y agoWhat do we think of the experiment design? Good example? Anyone think of any obvious flaws?
- nknighthb 13y agoMy first thought was local weather -- the exclusion zone is a pretty big place. The two pages of their paper I have access to, however, suggests they were quite conscious of that. If they accounted for it properly, the methodology is probably valid. I'd very much like to see the raw data, of course.
- keithpeter 13y agoRaw data with locations &c would make a really good interesting case study for teaching.
- Someone 13y agoAs nknighthb says, it's hard to say without access to the full paper. I googled for it, but couldn't find it. There are two things I noticed in the web page (not the paper) that triggered questions immediately. Firstly the claim "Because they had so many bags placed in so many different locations, they were able to statistically control for outside factors such as humidity, temperature and forest and soil type". The map only has 19 or so locations. Seems a bit few to me to control for so many variables. Or am I mistaken? Secondly, the map has areas colored green, but the legend runs from yellow via orange to red. What does green mean? Radiation at normal levels?
- maxerickson 13y agoEcologists tend to squeeze their data good and hard (you see them building a lot of the statistical modeling tools in R or whatever). Facile analysis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oecologia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oecologia ) says that it isn't the very best journal but probably isn't a joke either.
- thisisdave 13y agoI believe this[1] is the paper (paywalled). From the abstract: >we deposited 572 bags with uncontaminated dry leaf litter from four species of trees in the leaf litter layer at 20 forest sites around Chernobyl that varied in background radiation by more than a factor 2,600 Depending on how much variation there is in microclimate and soil type within their 20 locations, I could believe that they could get some pretty convincing results from 572 bags. Especially if, as it appears from their claims, the effect of radiation is very large relative to background noise. On the other hand, the senior author: * is not an expert in any related field as far as I can tell * has been known to fabricate his data [2] and engage in borderline misconduct during the data analysis and writing phases as well [3]. I'm agnostic. [1]: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00442-014-2908-8 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00442-014-2908-8 [2]: http://news.sciencemag.org/2004/01/ecologists-rocked-misconduct-finding http://news.sciencemag.org/2004/01/ecologists-rocked-miscond... [3]: http://bio.fsu.edu/~dhoule/Publications/mollerreview.pdf http://bio.fsu.edu/~dhoule/Publications/mollerreview.pdf (large PDF)
- keithpeter 13y agoLatin square type design I presume. Thanks for posting this and spending the time. Given the record in your second reference, I'd imagine the lead author would want to have the data out there and eye-balled by as many as possible to improve reputation.
- dalke 13y agoSome of the data is in link [1] as "Supplementary Material". This can be downloaded without a fee. It isn't much though.
- gmack 13y agoWhat about bioremediation? Bring in microorganisms, bacteria and fungal spores, from healthy forests, and inoculate this one?
- Kenji 13y ago"To confirm their hunch, they created around 600 small mesh bags and stuffed them each with leaves, collected at an uncontaminated site..." They used uncontaminated samples yet the environment killed the microorganisms and fungi they brought in. I think this doesn't work as long as the radiation level stays this high in the area.
- yummyfajitas 13y agoThe issue is most likely that high radiation levels are inhibiting the growth of microorganisms. So new microorganisms would probably just die. Note that this is not particularly unexpected. We do this on purpose (in a more controlled manner) to prevent spoilage of food and reduce food borne illnesses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation
- lostlogin 13y agoThat will be happening every time it rains, wind blows, river flows, something like an animal comes in etc. Repopulating it probably isn't hard and wouldn't take long as it's happening naturally. The tricky part is trying not to have every organism killed after arriving.
- ph0rque 13y agoUnfortunately, there’s no obvious solution for the problem at hand... How about seeding the area with radiation-eating fungi, would that help?
- maaku 13y agoThat just redistributes the radiation into the fungi. Then what do you do?
- swalsh 13y agofind an animal to eat the fungi, then collect all the dead fungi predators, and place them deep in a mountain where we put nuclear waste?
- grey413 13y agoThe huge majority of any fungi tends to be in the ground or within it's host. Plus the entire problem is quite likely that the wood/leaf eating fungi are radiation sensitive, so...
- bambax 13y agoChernobyl: no fridge needed.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- lvh 13y agoAre you taking into consideration advancements in reactor technology? The state of the art is hardly comparable to Chernobyl. And it's not like we just don't know yet how badly current-gen would fail; we have pretty strong physics and engineering arguments that show it doesn't fail that way.
- ensignavenger 13y agoThe State of the Art when Chernobyl was built was far beyond Chernobyl- but corners were cut, just like Fukushima.The question isn't can we build (and maintain) very safe Nuclear reactors, the question is, will we? Just to be clear, I am of the opinion that modern Nuclear is a great option for our present energy needs.
- ori_b 13y agoChernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen. It had no containment, a design that caused a spike in output when the control rods were driven in to reduce output (the tips on the control rod were the issue), and even then, the accident only happened when the engineers deliberately caused a fault. It's like a car that was designed with no airbags or crumplezones had it's brake lines deliberately cut, and then it was driven into a wall at full speed to see what would happen. No surprise that someone got hurt. And Fukushima? It had containment, but it was using a design that predated Chernobyl, and sacrificed safety for the ability to produce material that you could use to build bombs. Nuclear is far from perfect, but compared to the damage we're doing with fossil fuels, I'd welcome a change to the relatively safe and clean nuclear power, especially with modern, safe designs.
- iSnow 13y agoThe problem with nuclear is not the reactors - they can be reasonably safe with today's technology. The problem is nuclear waste. No matter what nuclear technology you use, it leaves behind tons of waste that will be hazardous in tens of thousands of years.
- pearjuice 13y ago>Click here to continue to the article Dropped. Can anyone give a summary?
- kthakore 13y agoBasically, radiation is effecting the ability of natural decomposition processes in the exclusion zone. A study was conducted with natural leaves in panty hose bags within the exclusion zone and outside it. 60% percent of the weight of the bags was still retained in the exclusion zone after one year. This is a major concern because the exclusion zone (particularly the Red Forest) has 27 years of litter (leaves and other plant material) which is a fire hazard. A large fire could redistribute the radioactive material outside of the exclusion zone. Hope that helps.
- ssully 13y agoYeah I can't believe those deceitful bastards at the Smithsonian would dare float the idea of a possible subscription to their magazine before you read their article.
- Jtsummers 13y agoIt isn't even that (at least I didn't get that). It's just a standard click through advertisement that 90% of magazine sites seem to use. A lot of interesting and informative articles are hidden away behind these pernicious, easily skippable, advertisements.
- ssully 13y agoWhile I agree completely that it's a bit outdated(sorry, potentially putting words in your mouth) and has the potential to be pernicious(see the parent of this thread), the easily skippable part is what makes it ok with me. I found the subscription notice to be incredibly unoffensive given the reputation of the source as well as the high quality of the article.
- Jtsummers 13y ago
- todayiamme 13y agoAs a potential solution, has anyone considered sprinkling the area with graphite, massive amounts of graphite flakes? It's quite difficult to burn nuclear grade graphite, and it might actually act as a moderator for the fallout and help to control what's happening randomly. Maybe the solution is to dump a moderator over the area and seed it with organisms and see if something takes hold? Either way, this doesn't seem to be an intractable problem if one is a bit lax in terms of long term uncertainty. (this would throw off the projections of how this is going to play out 500 years from now)
- cinquemb 13y agoFrom looking at the wiki on neutron moderators[0], it seems like light water is used in more reactors globally, so would that be cheaper to use? And maybe for deployment you'd have quadcopters drop biodegradable ballons filled with it. Would be really interesting to read a feasibility study around this. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator
- bostik 13y agoI saw a documentary about the Chernobyl exclusion zone a couple of years back. One of the more interesting facts was that while the radioation levels on the ground and soil surface have slowly gone down, the radiation levels from the trees are higher. Explanation for this oddity was also provided, and like most things, makes perfect sense in retrospect. The radioactive particles have been slowly washed downwards in the soil, which explains the soil surface figures. But as the particles get to the depth where trees and saplings have their roots, these suck the particles in and eventually they get distributed in the leaves. Funky, but oh so natural.
- pasbesoin 13y agoIn the months after Chernobyl, mushrooms e.g. in the Tirol and in Eastern Europe were measured concentrating fallout up to 400x. I'm not surprised that slower growing vegetation is showing an uptick.
- politician 13y agoSo, in the event of nuclear fallout, we could seed mushrooms everywhere to clean it up? Maybe we should do that in Fukashima.
- md2be 13y agoThis is awesome science (I would say a little more worthy of a kickstarter than Another burger joint). Fukushima is the Chernobyl of the sea, hopefully someone will do similar research to study it.
- guscost 13y agoThe whole "compare Chernobyl to an incident at a passive-safe reactor" thing is an enormous pet peeve of mine. Fukushima is certainly no such thing.
- tehwalrus 13y agoradiation underwater is much, much less harmful, because water is much more dense than air. https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
- deletes 13y agoAssuming the water is clean of radioactive particles( like dust or metal fragments ).
- tehwalrus 13y agoI would predict that such particles would be more dense, and sink over time to the bottom. However, there is the possibility of organisms eating them and then swimming around. Nonetheless, the environmental damage should be greatly reduced.
- not_that_noob 13y agoExcellent science. Of course, in retrospect, makes complete sense. Radiation is used to sterilize food, so it's not surprising that it is doing the same thing to the forest.
- marcosdumay 13y agoI'm surprised. I'd expect micro-organisms to adapt faster to radiation than plants, not slower.
- yk 13y agoMy guess is, for a micro-organism death of a single cell is deadly. So the first photon that comes along kills. ( A bit more formal, irradiation effects are probably proportional to the surface area, while available cells, and thus ratio of destruction, is probably proportional to the volume. So relative damage is proportional to 1/size.)
- Dylan16807 13y agoThat doesn't make any sense to me. I can't imagine any quasi-realistic situation where irradiation would be proportional to surface area.
- yk 13y agoWell cross section, which is in a quite handwaving way proportional to surface area.
- Dylan16807 13y agoBut radiation can go through without impacting anything. Absorption should be roughly proportional to total mass/volume. Even if it didn't penetrate then some cells/rocks/dirt would shade others from the danger and the average radiation would still be based on mass/volume. I mean it's not like treating a human body as individual cells, increasing surface area a millionfold, would change the dose.
- agumonkey 13y agoWhat about the animal population that seems to have adapted enough to resist the current radioactivity levels (source: some BBC documentary IIRC). I found it fascinating.
- dalke 13y agoI take it you didn't read the Smithsonian article? The second paragraph says: > Birds around Chernobyl have significantly smaller brains that those living in non-radiation poisoned areas; trees there grow slower; and fewer spiders and insects—including bees, butterflies and grasshoppers—live there. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster#Plant_and_animal_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disast... , which also points out that "[s]ome plants and animals have been able to adapt to the increased radiation levels present in and around Chernobyl", but then only lists the Arabidopsis plant. There is more animal diversity there now than before, but that can also be attributed to it being more like a wildlife sanctuary.
- agumonkey 13y agoI read it (without skimming even). But allow me to be surprised that, considering what I remember about human populations impact (heavy and deadly mutations in children), even with reduced organs, there are living animals near the site.
- dalke 13y agoThis is likely because your baseline is not a wildlife sanctuary. You are comparing the animal life in populated, pre-accident Chernobyl with farms and agriculture, to depopulated, post-accident Chernobyl with little additional human impact. See http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/wildlife_in_chernobyl_debate_over_mutations_and_populations_of_plants_and.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_pow... > Those studies found mammal diversity and abundance equal to that of a protected nature reserve, with rare species including bears, lynx, river otter, and badger as well as introduced herds of European bison and Przewalski’s horses. Bird diversity is even richer and includes 61 rare species. Whooper swans—never before reported in the region—now appear regularly. It points out that animal counts isn't the same as animal health, and it suggests that a reason we don't see those animals born with 'heavy and deadly mutations' is because they are quickly eaten by other animals.
- stcredzero 13y agoReminds me of the grocery store scene from 28 Days Later -- "Mmmmm! Irradiated!"
- runarb 13y agoHave anyone been to Chernobyl? I find the topic fascinating, and are considering to go there to have a look for my self. Apparently there is possible to have an guided tour into the exclusion zone. For example https://chernobyl-tour.com/english/ https://chernobyl-tour.com/english/ .
- akiselev 13y agoHuh I'm curious about whether this is really that bad. Eastern Europe (including and most of all, Russia) have peat lands which are extremely dense decayed plant matter that has, over many many years, compressed to the point where it has more carbon than coal. Russia's forest fires (having killed tens of thousands in 2010 and 2012 each) are the worst because the dense peat in the ground continues to burn through the years and nothing but a huge investment in landscaping will help put it out. If decomposers are unable to create the peat as fast, it might make controlling the fires far easier in the short term because the peat won't continue burning, thus decreasing the risk of a catastrophic forest fire spreading nuclear ash everywhere. Edit: That said, peat takes thousands of years to build up so it might not make any difference whatsoever.
- saalweachter 13y agoMore spin: Carbon that is not decaying is carbon that is sequestered. If the trees don't decompose, it removes carbon from the biosphere and ultimately from the atmosphere. Win!
- ChuckMcM 13y agoI appreciate the care they went to in order to exclude other causes. I am not surprised that microbes are more susceptible to ionizing radiation than larger multi-cellular life given their structure. But I am surprised that they don't make up for that in fecundity.
- dangrossman 13y agoAfter a decade there's a couple extra inches of wood and leaf matter sitting on the ground. I've always wondered what our planet looked like in the millions of years between the evolution of trees, and the evolution of the first fungus that could break down cellulose. With nowhere to go, those dead forests eventually fossilized and became coal deposits -- but what was it like to actually be there when those forests were growing. How thick did the dead wood stack up? How did anything grow after the first few generations of trees covered the ground in so much dead carbon?
- Someone 13y agoWas there such a time? A quick google gives me, for trees, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants#Tree_form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants#... "The early Devonian landscape was devoid of vegetation taller than waist height." and "The first plants to develop this secondary growth, and a woody habit, were apparently the ferns, and as early as the middle Devonian one species, Wattieza, had already reached heights of 8 m and a tree-like habit.", Comparing that with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_fungi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_fungi "A rich diversity of fungi is known from the lower Devonian Rhynie chert", and lower Devonian = early Devonian, I very tentatively conclude fungi precluded trees. Given that, I (not hindered by much specific knowledge of the subject) expect that fungi breaking down cellulose co-evolved with trees.
- grey413 13y agoActually, the period between the development of woody plants and the development of wood-eating fungi was approximately 60 million years, and is known as the carboniferous because of all of the carbon that got sequestered. Also, the key chemical wasn't cellulose, but rather lignin. Lignin is an astoundingly complex polymer* that plants use as "concrete" to create their woody cells. As far as I know, white rot fungi is the only group that can break it down. *seriously, look at that thing: http://cse.ksu.edu/REU/S11/emd4y8/breakdown.html http://cse.ksu.edu/REU/S11/emd4y8/breakdown.html. That's a big goddamn molecule.
- 13y ago
- caycep 13y agoHm, so that's how the forests in Nausicaa happened...
- NextUserName 13y agoWow, who would have expected that there is slow decay when microbes that decay things are killed or slowed by radiation... What a waste of time.