Abandoned, But No Wasteland: Chernobyl Offers Animals Room To Thrive

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Feb 12, 2013
25,113
3,012
280
Everywhere but nowhere
When you think of a nuclear meltdown, a lifeless wasteland likely comes to mind — a barren environment of strewn ashes and desolation. Yet nearly 30 years after the disaster at the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union, a very different reality has long since taken root.

In and around Chernobyl, wildlife now teems in a landscape long abandoned by humans. The area has been largely vacant of human life since 31 people died in the catastrophe and cleanup.

"It's well-established that when you create large reserves and protect wildlife from everyday human activities, wildlife generally tend to thrive," says Jim Beasley, a researcher at the Warnell School of Forestry at the University of Georgia.

He and a team of fellow researchers embarked on a study of the Chernobyl exclusion zone — specifically, the sector that rests on the Belarusian side of the Ukraine-Belarus border. They aimed to better understand how animal populations had been affected by the world's worst nuclear meltdown.


"Our study specifically looked at mid- to large-size mammals," Beasley says, "so everything from hare- or rabbit-sized animals, wild boar, moose — everything up to apex predators like wolves."

More at: Abandoned, But No Wasteland: Chernobyl Offers Animals Room To Thrive

This looks to be good news..
 
For those with little knowledge of what radiation is, and relative levels of radiation, that may come to mind. For those with knowledge, we knew that the wildlife would do well. Except those mutations created by the radiation that die in the short or long term. We are willing to accept that for animals, but not for humans.
 
Lack of humans is good for wild life? I thought the right wing position was that humans had no effect on the environment! How many times have we been told that warnings about overpopulation are just left wing propaganda used to keep the people under control? It's funny how we're noticing the effects, but where's the recognition that the environment and the human footprint ARE things to be concerned about?
 
Lack of humans is good for wild life? I thought the right wing position was that humans had no effect on the environment! How many times have we been told that warnings about overpopulation are just left wing propaganda used to keep the people under control? It's funny how we're noticing the effects, but where's the recognition that the environment and the human footprint ARE things to be concerned about?

Another far left drone and their programmed religious comments..
 
For those with little knowledge of what radiation is, and relative levels of radiation, that may come to mind. For those with knowledge, we knew that the wildlife would do well. Except those mutations created by the radiation that die in the short or long term. We are willing to accept that for animals, but not for humans.

Remember this what you AGW cult members support, you want more of these..
 
Lack of humans is good for wild life? I thought the right wing position was that humans had no effect on the environment! How many times have we been told that warnings about overpopulation are just left wing propaganda used to keep the people under control? It's funny how we're noticing the effects, but where's the recognition that the environment and the human footprint ARE things to be concerned about?
Another far left drone and their programmed religious comments..
Another post that says nothing. How many of these before it's considered spam?
 

Forum List

Back
Top