Weirdly, there was actually a period of history where this was normal. During the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago trees just fell over and lay there because nothing had evolved to decay them yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous
Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)
151–160 of 169 posts
Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
In general, it's mind-blowing to travel back in Earth's history and realize there were tens or hundreds of millions of years where strategies that are commonplace today had never been tried before (or they'd tried too early and failed). It makes one wonder, what will be the strategies of future life which no creature has yet evolved? Can we even imagine it?
it's also mind blowing to know that there are things which really haven't changed in over a billion years, yet still do just fine. How did my bio prof say it? "Bacteria are like the race cars of the biological world. They don't win by having the best strategy, they win by rate of duplication and acquisition."
Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure? Because my understanding is, in the past what has happened is that some other force causes a bit of warming, and then the oceans heat up, which causes co2 to bubble out, which then causes more warming, which causes more co2 to bubble out, and so on. So co2 is an active part of the picture but it wasn’t the independent variable, so to speak. Whereas now we’re mining fossil carbon and squirting it directl…
It’s very similar. We’re just the ‘other force’ that is kicking it off this time, and we’re a bit more efficient than most.
Basically the amount of co2 that the ocean can have dissolved in it is a function of temperature and the relative co2 concentration of the air. When the temperature of the water increases it can hold less co2. Just like when soda gets warm and isn’t pressurized, it gets flat.
Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)
#154They just blew a major dam in Kakhovka, Ukraine, with tens of thousands being evacuated.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-no-threat-f...
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/live-updates-ukraine-accuses-russia-of...
Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed... still used for wine bottles. I can't say I'm too happy with it though, given the amount of bottles spoiled by bad cork.
The screw top for wine bottles, one of the best inventions in recent decades.
Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's also mind blowing to know that there are things which really haven't changed in over a billion years, yet still do just fine. How did my bio prof say it? "Bacteria are like the race cars of the biological world. They don't win by having the best strategy, they win by rate of duplication and acquisition."
Clearly I don't know much about race cars because that makes no sense to me, lol
Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's also mind blowing to know that there are things which really haven't changed in over a billion years, yet still do just fine. How did my bio prof say it? "Bacteria are like the race cars of the biological world. They don't win by having the best strategy, they win by rate of duplication and acquisition."
Are there species of bacteria that are substantially unchanged in a billion years?
Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
And suddenly plastics won't be the sterile, durable wonders that they are. We are living in The golden age of plastics , folks.
Things degrade wood too, doesn't make it useless.
Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
> radiation doses do add up Yes and no. Acute exposure is not the same as protracted exposure. 10mSv in a microsecond is a vastly different risk than 10mSv over a year. Before you make such bold and obtuse claims, you may consider that this 20mSv safety limit includes radiation workers, who we haven't measured as having increased risk of cancer (even when the limits were higher). The relative risk starts around 50mSv…
I am not assuming anything. Facts so far: boar in Bavaria is exceeding radiation limits for nutrition and can thus not be used (differs through out Bavaria of course), these limits have been put in place for good reason (I do not open a discission about the validity of safe thresholds for potetially dangerous stuff) and that this problem is directly linked to Chernobyl. Your argument was, I summarize, that is not bad…
Yes
> we should increase safe thresholds and move on, right?
Words you put in my mouth
Re: Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
The screw top for wine bottles, one of the best inventions in recent decades.
Yes... easy to open, easy to close, needs no tool, preserves the wine. No drawbacks, unless you're into nostalgia.