Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 169 posts

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#11

Post by wongarsu »

pvaldes wrote: post #3

If this shows something crystal clear is that if the litter is let alone it doesn't burn necessarily. Just accumulates and made deep soil. The only wildfires in Chernobyl since 2014 were those provoked by soldiers. No men messing around + no cattle or farmers = no big wildfires. Of course we want this litter to remain just where it is as many decades as we can, but under each rock there is always an idiot, so the hea…

It's also worth noting that Ukraine gets 5-10 days of rain per month year around (or snow or other precipitation), and the driest month is comparable with San Francisco's October in terms of total precipitation.

No humans messing around plays a big role, but everything being wet most of the time certainly helps.

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#13

Post by [deleted] »

rtkwe wrote: post #10
garganzol wrote: post #4

Radiation has a notable sterilizing effect - this is why the speed of a natural decomposition is diminished. Fewer microbes leads to a slower decomposition.

Most of the exclusion zone is pretty low levels of radiation so I'm not sure how effective those are other than that they're an elevated background level. The FDA says 10 kGy is used for actual sterilization. Most of the zone is https://www.fda.gov/food/irradiation-food-packaging/overview... .

[deleted]

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#14

Post by thrashh »

rtkwe wrote: post #10
garganzol wrote: post #4

Radiation has a notable sterilizing effect - this is why the speed of a natural decomposition is diminished. Fewer microbes leads to a slower decomposition.

Most of the exclusion zone is pretty low levels of radiation so I'm not sure how effective those are other than that they're an elevated background level. The FDA says 10 kGy is used for actual sterilization. Most of the zone is https://www.fda.gov/food/irradiation-food-packaging/overview... .

But that to me just says that radiation definitely delays growth and a little radiation already affects a much larger organism like a plant, it’s probably hurting smaller organisms much more.

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#15

Post by karaterobot »

I keep looking at the word "properly" and thinking that is implying some negative judgment. I'm all for using radiation to preserve food from decay — as we do already, and should do more of. But I suppose it may be considered proper to preserve food meant for storage, transfer, and human consumption, while considering leaves in the woods not decaying to be improper.

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#16

Post by arcticbull »

garganzol wrote: post #4

Radiation has a notable sterilizing effect - this is why the speed of a natural decomposition is diminished. Fewer microbes leads to a slower decomposition.

The average US background radiation dose ranges from 1.5-3.5mSv/yr, or 0.25-0.6uSv/hr. This guy went into the exclusion zone and took various measurements [1] and outside of hotspots, the radiation level there seems to be just at or above the average US background radiation level.

Now I'm sure if you go digging in the Red Forest like the Russians did at the start of the war you're going to have a bad time, but the exclusion zone has settled down significantly. Most of the highly radioactive isotopes have by definition a very short half-life.

Are you confident there are fewer microbes?

[1] http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation...

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#18

Post by hammock »

arcticbull wrote: post #16
garganzol wrote: post #4

Radiation has a notable sterilizing effect - this is why the speed of a natural decomposition is diminished. Fewer microbes leads to a slower decomposition.

The average US background radiation dose ranges from 1.5-3.5mSv/yr, or 0.25-0.6uSv/hr. This guy went into the exclusion zone and took various measurements [1] and outside of hotspots, the radiation level there seems to be just at or above the average US background radiation level. Now I'm sure if you go digging in the Red Forest like the Russians did at the start of the war you're going to have a bad time, but the ex…

He took surface measurements. Is the same true below the surface? Bugs and microbes live deep in the soil

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#19

Post by dendrite9 »

pvaldes wrote: post #3

If this shows something crystal clear is that if the litter is let alone it doesn't burn necessarily. Just accumulates and made deep soil. The only wildfires in Chernobyl since 2014 were those provoked by soldiers. No men messing around + no cattle or farmers = no big wildfires. Of course we want this litter to remain just where it is as many decades as we can, but under each rock there is always an idiot, so the hea…

It seems the forest conditions/fuel load are very different in Ukraine from places like California, the Rockies, or Turkey. Lightning starts wildfires completely free of human intervention.

Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

#20

Post by anonporridge »

Ekaros wrote: post #12

Now could this be solution for large scale carbon capture? Seed massive amounts of forested areas with radioactive material? So we could prevent large mass of bio material from decomposing and thus releasing carbondioxide?

There's a scifi or apocolyptic story in here.

Environmental extremists come to the conclusion that irradiating large patches of Earth to make it unlivable for humans but is a net benefit to the non human ecosystem because the damage from human habitation far exceeds the damage from radiation. And of course, life evolves and adapts to the radiation. Then they start seeding dirty bombs to intentionally create more and more of these no go zones that become nature sanctuaries.

I suppose "The 100" is partially playing into this concept.

Post reply on HN