Chernobyl

[waterplant]

Maybe some might find this article interesting - I was going to put it in the 'globilization' thread as a continuation of that but didn't.

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027

 

This is interesting as I heard that biodiversity had increased in the restricted zone. There are a number of aspects to measuring biodiversity (abundance, richness, etc.) which may lead to differing conclusions.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: waterplant

Maybe some might find this article interesting - I was going to put it in the 'globilization' thread as a continuation of that but didn't.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027

This is interesting as I heard that biodiversity had increased in the restricted zone. There are a number of aspects to measuring biodiversity (abundance, richness, etc.) which may lead to differing conclusions.

What, a toxic nuclear meltdown capable of poisoning and killing thousands of humans kills animals too? No, that's impossible!

[The Mystic]

Actually, I'm kind of surprised that anything is living in the area at all. The region will probably be setting off Geiger counters for generations, and the blast site for even longer.

[Dintiradan]

A while back, Thralni posted a link to this story about a motorcyclist who visited the site. There's probably better documentaries about Chernobyl than this one, but it's interesting all the same.

 

The animals there aren't exactly the healthiest, but with no person living there anymore it probably has more wildlife than your average city.

[Randomizer]

Some creatures like cockroaches have higher resistances, but most likely it's the lack of competition for resources that caused some things to move there.

 

There are plenty of animals living in the cities. Two days ago I watched a bird perch on a chair back three feet from a customer eating outside just waiting for the customer to finish so he could swoop in for a snack.

[Slawbug]

I have to say, this wins my award for "least newsworthy science story in a long time."

 

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

Actually, I'm kind of surprised that anything is living in the area at all. The region will probably be setting off Geiger counters for generations, and the blast site for even longer.

When the meltdown occured, Geiger counters in Sweden went off for some time.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

Actually, I'm kind of surprised that anything is living in the area at all. The region will probably be setting off Geiger counters for generations, and the blast site for even longer.

There's a pretty big gap between "enough radiation to maybe give some humans cancer" and "enough radiation to wipe out all life". We may consider an area uninhabitable, but other animals aren't so picky.

[Alorael at Large]

Actually, while it's obvious that wildlife would be unhealthy and likely to have markedly reduced lifespans, it's not obvious to me that there would be fewer species in Chernobyl. If that's among the studies findings, and I honestly can't tell if it is or not, then that says something about species' competitiveness under radioactive selective pressure.

 

—Alorael, who thinks this is a terribly written science story. The study itself, in all likelihood, is meaningful. Surely someone on the grant committee saw something in the proposal.

[Lilith]

on the bright side they've also discovered a new species of fungus in the exclusion zone that seems to have independently evolved a form of photosynthesis, using melanin to capture background radiation and convert it to chemical energy

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

on the bright side they've also discovered a new species of fungus in the exclusion zone that seems to have independently evolved a form of photosynthesis, using melanin to capture background radiation and convert it to chemical energy

Really? I doubt that...

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: Lilith

on the bright side they've also discovered a new species of fungus in the exclusion zone that seems to have independently evolved a form of photosynthesis, using melanin to capture background radiation and convert it to chemical energy

Really? I doubt that...

If I remember correctly, Lilith is a biology teacher. My inclination is to trust him, but not quote him until evidence is provided. Evidence that I am very interested to read, but too lazy to go and find.

[Lilith]

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/2095/silent-spring

 

i could have sworn it got posted here in a previous thread

[nikki.]

Wikipedia knows all.

 

Edit: Damn you Thurlilith.

[*i]

Quote:

Actually, while it's obvious that wildlife would be unhealthy and likely to have markedly reduced lifespans, it's not obvious to me that there would be fewer species in Chernobyl. If that's among the studies findings, and I honestly can't tell if it is or not, then that says something about species' competitiveness under radioactive selective pressure.

On the contrary Alo, it is not obvious at all that wildlife would be "unhealthy and likely to have markedly reduced lifespans". Certainly, no one argues that extreme doses of radiation are hazardous for life, what is far more questionable is how elevated, but smaller doses impact a population. This is still a subject of vigorous debate amongst the scientific community.

But wait a minute, was not the land around Chernobyl rendered uninhabitable by vast quantities of radiation? I'm sure you can still find isolated hot spots and the area within and immediately surrounding the plant would indeed be quite toxic, but, by and large, the levels of radiation from fallout are not in, or even close to, the range where it would necessarily induce radiation poisoning. Also remember, that it has been 25 years since the event and that the radioactivity from the fallout has been, in accordance with the laws of physics, decreasing exponentially since then.

Consider that natural background radiation varies quite a bit over the world. The lowest areas are typically found at sea level and increase with elevation because of cosmic rays. However, certain areas have marked increases as a result of certain natural mineral deposits. Some areas have a dose rate of ten to twenty times higher than at sea level; in these cases no statistically significant impacts on human lifespans or cancer rates have been observed.

But wait again, is that not natural radiation and the stuff from Chernobyl fundamentally different? While the isotopes emitting the radiation would be different, the radiation itself is no different from what you get everyday from natural sources. Your cells do not care whether it was struck by a gamma ray from the decay of a naturally occurring isotope of radon or one from synthetically made plutonium-241.

WIth this in mind and the fact that typical radiation levels are not to the point of grave concern, it is not surprising at all that life is doing just fine.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: *i

On the contrary Alo, it is not obvious at all that wildlife would be "unhealthy and likely to have markedly reduced lifespans". Certainly, no one argues that extreme doses of radiation are hazardous for life, what is far more questionable is how elevated, but smaller doses impact a population. This is still a subject of vigorous debate amongst the scientific community.

But wait a minute, was not the land around Chernobyl rendered uninhabitable by vast quantities of radiation? I'm sure you can still find isolated hot spots and the area within and immediately surrounding the plant would indeed be quite toxic, but, by and large, the levels of radiation from fallout are not in, or even close to, the range where it would necessarily induce radiation poisoning. Also remember, that it has been 25 years since the event and that the radioactivity from the fallout has been, in accordance with the laws of physics, decreasing exponentially since then.

Consider that natural background radiation varies quite a bit over the world. The lowest areas are typically found at sea level and increase with elevation because of cosmic rays. However, certain areas have marked increases as a result of certain natural mineral deposits. Some areas have a dose rate of ten to twenty times higher than at sea level; in these cases no statistically significant impacts on human lifespans or cancer rates have been observed.

But wait again, is that not natural radiation and the stuff from Chernobyl fundamentally different? While the isotopes emitting the radiation would be different, the radiation itself is no different from what you get everyday from natural sources. Your cells do not care whether it was struck by a gamma ray from the decay of a naturally occurring isotope of radon or one from synthetically made plutonium-241.

WIth this in mind and the fact that typical radiation levels are not to the point of grave concern, it is not surprising at all that life is doing just fine.

But but... we don't all have degrees in nuclear physics .

[Sudanna]

No, but I understood it.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Eld

No, but I understood it.

Well sure, it's not rocket science.

[Sudanna]

[Slawbug]

Serious question re *i's post:

 

Okay, so there isn't a distressing level of radiation there now. But there was, however briefly, a pretty seriously distressing level of radiation there. Presumably that would have had an immediate impact (if not an immediately visible impact) on animal life there when the event took place. And okay, that was 25 years ago -- but wouldn't it make sense for population and maybe even population diversity to still look different 25 years after such an event?

[A less presumptuous name.]

Different? Surely. Weak and depleted? Not necessarily. The rapid extinction opened up massive amounts of resources with very low competition. New populations would develop as soon as the region could support life. Organisms with natural resilience to radiation would be at a higher advantage. With the amount of radiation constantly decreasing, populations will live longer and healthier lives, especially given the amount of resources. Sure, there is probably still a notable ecological difference between the fallout region and similar non-radioactive regions, but it doesn't surprise me that life is thriving there.

 

That said, I'm just a guy with a single bio course (high school AP) and a good bit of logic. I could well be completely wrong.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Eld

That's Numberwang!

[Lord Safey]

my guess is that most animals have more trouble surviving humans then cancer causing radiation.

[Randomizer]

It depends upon the radiation type. Alpha radiation is blocked by a sheet of paper. Beta radiation takes a bit more since those are electrons. It's the gamma radiation that can penetrate straight through into the interior.

 

Next consideration is dosage. After 25 years some sources have decayed enough to be tolerated.

[waterplant]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

I have to say, this wins my award for "least newsworthy science story in a long time."

Perhaps you're right. A first time ever, once in a generation, (hopefully) never to be repeated, on the ground real life study into the effects of widespread radiation of an area formerly inhabited by humans is a bit of a waste of everybody's time. *yawn*. Didn't these 'scientists' read their textbooks at uni? Why would anybody want to find out what is actually happening in the field when scientists already know what would be happening in this unique area from sitting in lectures?

pfft! Field studies - what a joke!

Granted, the Beeb doesn't give the best coverage of stories like this. If anyone comes across an article from a journal covering these developments I would be interested to read more in detail.

[*i]

Quote:

Okay, so there isn't a distressing level of radiation there now. But there was, however briefly, a pretty seriously distressing level of radiation there. Presumably that would have had an immediate impact (if not an immediately visible impact) on animal life there when the event took place. And okay, that was 25 years ago -- but wouldn't it make sense for population and maybe even population diversity to still look different 25 years after such an event?

Most likely the diversity of population would be different in accordance with the laws of Darwin following any life-altering disaster (e.g. a major fire or flood). First, you would have preference for survival amongst those species genetically predisposed to surviving a catastrophe. Once the danger has averted, a new equilibrium will be reached by a combination the population of survivors and any other forms that migrate into the area.

In the case of the Chernobyl disaster, you had a couple things. First was a large radioactive release by the spreading of radioactive fallout from a burning nuclear reactor. Life closest to the plant was surely affected in very negative ways. As we go further away from the site, the answer is less clear because the doses received were in that area where cancer rates would be increased (if a lifeform lives long enough, which, in the wild is not always the case). Even further away, we are even less certain as to the biological impact.

The second thing was the long term total evacuation of humans, a superpredator if you will. This was largely done as a precaution and not necessarily as a life saving and necessary measure (don't want Pavel living on a radioactive hotspot). The removal of a dominant predator from any ecosystem usually has a significant impact. Things I have read suggest this had the largest effect in terms of biodiversity there.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

When the meltdown occured, Geiger counters in Sweden went off for some time.

Not surprising, all things considered. With a nuclear explosion like Chernobyl, it wouldn't surprise me if Geiger counters worldwide went off to some degree.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

We may consider an area uninhabitable, but other animals aren't so picky.

Good point. I forgot that most life tends to be a bit on the opportunistic side. Nature abhors a vacuum, and all that.

[*i]

Quote:

With a nuclear explosion like Chernobyl, it wouldn't surprise me if Geiger counters worldwide went off to some degree.

I should point something out that is a common misconception about Chernobyl and nuclear reactor accidents. A nuclear reactor cannot explode like a nuclear bomb. At Chernobyl, there was no mushroom cloud explosion. There was indeed an explosion from the rapid overheating of the reactor that blew apart the building holding the reactor. This caused part of the core to be ejected. Much of the additional radioactive release was from the burning of the reactor core that was now exposed to the atmosphere.

What is the difference between an explosion at a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb? The biggest difference is the raw energy release. The explosive power in a reactor accident is thousands or even millions times less than a nuclear weapon explosion depending on the size of the bomb.

Why is it different? The fundamental principle in maximizing yield from a nuclear weapon is to get as many fission (or fusion) reactions as possible before the device tears itself apart causing the explosion. To do this, you need to bring a system into a certain configuration very quickly. Bombs are specifically designed for this, whereas reactors are not. In a reactor, you cannot possibly get even close to enough nuclear reactivity fast enough to do this. The configuration is all wrong and the time scales in a reactor accident are factors of a thousand to a million or more too slow depending on the reactor design.

Not saying what happened at Chernobyl was good or benign, but it was not a nuclear explosion how the term is conventionally defined.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

When the meltdown occured, Geiger counters in Sweden went off for some time.

Not surprising, all things considered. With a nuclear explosion like Chernobyl, it wouldn't surprise me if Geiger counters worldwide went off to some degree.

To vastly oversimplify what Stareye said, think of Chernobyl like a huge dirty bomb: a large conventional explosion spreads a cloud of highly radioactive waste all over the blast radius and more. It's not nuclear, but it's almost as devastating.

[*i]

Quote:

It's not nuclear, but it's almost as devastating.

I would have to respectfully disagree with you there. In terms of destructive power and impact upon life, a nuclear explosion is far more devastating than a dirty bomb can ever be.

The one thing the two have in common is the release of radioactive fallout. While that from a reactor release is somewhat worse over the long term than a nuclear explosion for reasons of nuclear physics, deaths from fallout whether immediate or from cancer eventually are only a small portion (perhaps 5% at most) of deaths you would expect from a nuclear explosion.

Most of the radiation related deaths from a nuclear explosion come from the release of prompt gamma rays and neutrons. Beyond this, you have vast quantities of thermal radiation capable of vaporizing anyone within a mile of the explosion and severely burning anyone within another mile. However, most deaths are from the shockwave whether direct or from debris of falling buildings. Furthermore, a vast number of people will be killed in the conflagration ignited by the heat of the blast.

All of this is pretty grim stuff and not fun to discuss. However, a dirty bomb or reactor explosion lacks all those elements in the above paragraph, which account for over the overwhelming number of deaths.

If we look at Chernobyl statistics, the radiation related deaths that we can directly attribute to the accident were those within the confines of the plant (those unfortunate firefighters) which is around 50. Beyond that, it becomes far more murky. Conservative estimates (based on gross extrapolations of effects of exposures from radiation from the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) estimate that 4,000 additional cases of cancer may result, but the actual number is likely to be far less. Even assuming the worst-case scenario, this is still far less than 100,000+ deaths one may expect from a nuclear explosion.

[Alorael at Large]

Death by radiation is ugly and scary, making dirty bombs an effective psychological weapon, but an actual high explosive bomb is probably more dangerous.

 

—Alorael, who on the other hand thinks that the most effective way to cause widespread death and panic is to unleash smallpox on a large university with a student body from all over the country just before a summer break. Smallpox is terrifying and effective.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: —All we zombies—

—Alorael, who on the other hand thinks that the most effective way to cause widespread death and panic is to unleash smallpox on a large university with a student body from all over the country just before a summer break. Smallpox is terrifying and effective.

Getting the timing right on that one would be extremely difficult. Couldn't one just infect those airplane blankets they have in airplanes?

[*i]

Alorael, completely right here. Biological agents would be far more effective than using a radioactive dispersant. It's extremely hard, if not impossible, to get enough radioactive material concentrated to be sufficiently deadly when dispersed without being instantly lethal in a concentrated form such that it would preclude its assembly.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Goldenking

Originally Posted By: —All we zombies—

—Alorael, who on the other hand thinks that the most effective way to cause widespread death and panic is to unleash smallpox on a large university with a student body from all over the country just before a summer break. Smallpox is terrifying and effective.

Getting the timing right on that one would be extremely difficult. Couldn't one just infect those airplane blankets they have in airplanes?

Yeah, or you could give a airline steward a deadly sexually transmitted disease and have him spread it through the country, like AIDS did.

[Sudanna]

But how would that specifically target the black community? What a silly way to distribute a disease.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: —All we zombies—

Death by radiation is ugly and scary, making dirty bombs an effective psychological weapon, but an actual high explosive bomb is probably more dangerous.

—Alorael, who on the other hand thinks that the most effective way to cause widespread death and panic is to unleash smallpox on a large university with a student body from all over the country just before a summer break. Smallpox is terrifying and effective.

You stole that idea from me. >(

[Dintiradan]

I think it's scary how much thought either of you have put into this.

[Alorael at Large]

Great minds think alike, Thuryl. (Yes, I know you've posted that before. I plotted it before you posted it, though.)

 

Seriously, though, a university would be a a good target but not an optimal target. A major airport is better, but of course there's security. Getting those blankets on the plane would be difficult. Airport security may not be very effective, but why risk it? Where do you know everyone entering the terminal will go? Yes, they'll all go through security to have their bags scanned and their persons inspected. Contaminate the entrance of an airport and you can hit everyone.

 

—Alorael, who isn't sure smallpox is the right choice either. It's infectious and lethal, but it's not optimal for either one, and the vaccine is already known and at least somewhat available. A pandemic flu strain might work better, but vaccines are also a problem and the flu is just not all that terrifying. Hemorrhagic fevers are perfect, but the really nasty ones like Ebola virus, which is an awful way to die and very likely to kill you, acts so quickly that it can be contained and doesn't spread easily enough. The solution is to release many different diseases at the same place and time, obviously.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: —All we zombies—

Seriously, though, a university would be a a good target but not an optimal target. A major airport is better, but of course there's security.

It's no coincidence that those are the two kinds of institution the Unabomber targeted, and he only had regular bombs.

But anyway, the goal of terrorism is generally to make some kind of a statement in a way that people will hear it, not to kill people as such. If you attack an airport and people stop flying planes, you've achieved your goal whether you actually kill more than a handful of people or not.

[Randomizer]

Greatest American Hero had a group trying to steal a smallpox sample from a research lab to wipe out Arab oil states. Of course this was the late 70s.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Greatest American Hero had a group trying to steal a smallpox sample from a research lab to wipe out Arab oil states. Of course this was the late 70s.

is that the one with the hilarious theme song

[Randomizer]

The theme was, Believe it or Not.

 

It was about a high school teacher given a red suit with super powers by little green aliens and working with an FBI agent. Too bad he lost the instruction manual, twice.

[Thaluikhain]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

But anyway, the goal of terrorism is generally to make some kind of a statement in a way that people will hear it, not to kill people as such. If you attack an airport and people stop flying planes, you've achieved your goal whether you actually kill more than a handful of people or not.

It also has the advantage of not spreading smallpox across the world...it's hard to get diseases to respect political or ideological boundaries.

Now, a crop blight, one that affected a plant (or animal, I suppose) that was important for the economy of the enemy, but that isn't important where you are...

I like the idea of spraying nitrates around near an airport, so that the security systems nitrate detectors get swamped...cause a massive fuss.

[RCCCL]

I like to wonder how many agents various government agencies have monitoring this site

 

Anyway, I think a good area of attack would be water supplies, whether a disease of some type of poison. It would have the advantage of affecting multiple classes of people.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: RCCCL

It would have the advantage of affecting multiple classes of people.

Except for all those people who can afford to spend money on fancy water filters and bottled water.

Dikiyoba has never understood those people who have access to clean tap water and yet prefer bottled water. Sure, tap water may not always taste the best, but it still beats out the taste of bottled water by a lot.

[Rowen]

The fact that you can drink water from the tap is amazing be itself.

[RCCCL]

Even those who use water filters or bottled water can still be affected, restaurants would still use the tap for cooking.

[Cthulhu]

I was under the impression that the filters for tap water did nothing but add minerals to alter the taste of the water.

[Callie]

Water filters remove particles from the water, which isn't terribly useful.

[Alorael at Large]

Most filters put in pitchers remove chlorine and calcium carbonate, and possibly some heavy metals as well. They do nothing at all about microbes, and they wouldn't work against a large number of inorganic toxins.

 

—Alorael, who thinks contaminating water supplies would probably get caught too soon to kill everyone. That's why you should contaminate the internet instead!

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: RCCCL

I like to wonder how many agents various government agencies have monitoring this site

The NSA has it automated to keyword search to kick out possible targets of interest. I'd love to see their reaction to all those mentions of Terror's Martyr.