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

21–30 of 169 posts

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

#21

Post by flangola7 »

pvaldes wrote: post #8
sva_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only wildfires in Chernobyl since 2014 were those provoked by soldiers Not exactly true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone_...

Thanks for the update. This proves my theory > "At least one suspect was arrested for alleged arson". > "the local young man has confessed to starting fires for fun" Ok. Lets change "soldiers" by a more generic "human pieces of s*t". I wonder if any fossil were radioactive before to became a fossil. That would made the process much easier.

At one time there were natural nuclear reactors. Veins of uranium rich enough to fission.

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

#22

Post by bluGill »

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?

No, because water in all dead material will dry out and then lightening strikes will start a fire and turn it all into CO2 again.

If you want to make a difference make sure that you start a forest and grassland fire every single year - the regular fires ensure the resulting fires are small and leave a lot of carbon behind some of which will get incorporated into the forest floor and forever stored away. Plus forests depend on those fires to clean up all the under brush.

Note, the above applies to most forests in North America, but you need to check with a local expert in forests to understand the details and where it doesn't apply. Every location/climate has different forests with different needs. There is no blanket statement that is right for everything.

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

#23

Post by BasedAnon »

anonporridge wrote: post #20
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…

[flagged]

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

#24

Post by hinkley »

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?

Sealife sanctuaries are causing commercial fish populations to bounce back. We just need rules that are simple enough that animals understand them, and we can fix a whole shitload of problems.

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

#25

Post by bequanna »

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…

Apples and oranges. I believe this area in Ukraine is considerably wetter vs. many Western US forests that typically see large scale wildfires.

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

#26

Post by sapiogram »

sampo wrote: post #17
jmkni wrote: post #2

Fascinating but needs a '2014' marker, I wonder what the situation is nearly another decade on?

https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/russian-troops-dug-trenches-in...

> The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said it has been unable to independently verify reporting that suggested Russian forces have received “high doses of radiation.”

All you need to know from the article.

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

#27

Post by bboygravity »

flangola7 wrote: post #21
pvaldes wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the update. This proves my theory > "At least one suspect was arrested for alleged arson". > "the local young man has confessed to starting fires for fun" Ok. Lets change "soldiers" by a more generic "human pieces of s*t". I wonder if any fossil were radioactive before to became a fossil. That would made the process much easier.

At one time there were natural nuclear reactors. Veins of uranium rich enough to fission.

One hypothesis is that the moon was basically spat out by a supercritical natural fission reactor inside earth at a time when the earth was still rotating much faster. Basically slinging a part of itself into space to form the moon.

I love that hypothesis.

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

#29

Post by jonplackett »

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

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

#30

Post by 1970-01-01 »

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?

Just deforest the land and dump the logs onto the North/South Pole, reforest, and repeat. No radiation necessary.
Post reply on HN