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

31–40 of 169 posts

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

#31

Post by dekhn »

jonplackett wrote: post #29

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

That didn't sound too right for me (but my biology knowledge is dated at this point) so I read the relevant section from that page. It concludes wiht:

"""The delayed fungal evolution hypothesis is controversial, however, and has been challenged by other researchers, who conclude that a combination of vast depositional systems present on the continents during the formation of Pangaea and widespread humid, tropical conditions were responsible for the high rate of coal formation."""

It's interesting to think just how much went on before trees with lignin showed up. Flowers are also relatively recent - 150mya.

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

#32

Post by jackmott42 »

jonplackett wrote: post #29

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

And when that huge pile of trees finally started to burn, we got our first case of rapid global warming from burned carbon. The second one is done by humans right now.

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

#33

Post by gus_massa »

bboygravity wrote: post #27
flangola7 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sadly the current most popular hypothesis in the scientific community is the collision of a smaller version of the Earth with another planet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon

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

#34

Post by pvaldes »

bequanna wrote: post #25
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.

All forests in the planet follow basically the same rule. The more time left undisturbed, the more water will fix in the area. Top ecosystems in the chain have typically plenty of water. Lower forms have less and less water and are more unstable.

"There are huge wildfires because no water in the area".

This is a lie that we tell ourselves. There is not water in the area because wildfires. Many of this fires were deliberated crimes and would have burn with or without water. The lack of water is a scar of a previous attack.

Somebody should build a forest Matrioska with a tiny cow cranium in the inner figure. Maybe this way the people would finally understand the obvious rule. After a few thousand years untouched, all forests became "rainforests".

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

#37

Post by NotYourLawyer »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #30
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.

“Just” move a zillion tons of wood halfway across the earth.

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

#38

Post by franky47 »

ftxbro wrote: post #36

> "Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly" i hope they can decay so their spirits can finally be laid to rest. the last thing ukraine needs right now is to be flanked by some restless undead radioactive ents

Wagner and the Radioactive Ents would be a cool band name.

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

#40

Post by bequanna »

pvaldes wrote: post #34
bequanna wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

All forests in the planet follow basically the same rule. The more time left undisturbed, the more water will fix in the area. Top ecosystems in the chain have typically plenty of water. Lower forms have less and less water and are more unstable. "There are huge wildfires because no water in the area". This is a lie that we tell ourselves. There is not water in the area because wildfires. Many of this fires were deli…

> After a few thousand years untouched, all forests became "rainforests".

Yea… I’m pretty sure this isn’t true.

There are many remote forests in Canada for example that haven’t been logged maybe ever and those areas still experience occasional large scale wildfires.

Post reply on HN