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

61–70 of 169 posts

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

#61

Post by beders »

godelski wrote: post #51

> including some [wild boar] bagged as far away as Germany—continue to show abnormal and dangerous levels of radiation. This really needs to stop. I remember doing the calculation a few years back due to another HN post (and the German obsession around boar) and you'd need to eat roughly 0.55lbs (0.25kg) of the most radioactive boar you could find every day or 3lbs (1.4kg) of the median. That is to just hit EU radiat…

Oh, a nature reserve... Never mind the 200,000 people that had to be relocated...

It doesn't matter how we perceive as nature coping with this disaster. The fact that it shouldn't have happened, the fact that there are still other reactors in operation of the same type, the fact that billions of tax payer dollars went into preventing more severe consequences should be a warning sign that this madness we call nuclear power needs to stop.

What's one thing the engineers of Fukushima and Chernobyl had in common: They all thought the reactor would be safe.

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

#62

Post by aeternum »

photochemsyn wrote: post #58

The Red Forest is highly contaminated, such that surface level microroentgens per hour are at least 10X than what's considered maximum safe level for humans, and likely a good deal higher in the soil. There are other tests that could have been done, such as measuring the ability of soil suspensions taken from the Red Forest to breakdown cellulose in a test tube (studies that would probably require a lot of care in a…

I wonder if any studies have looked at potential positives. For example the Red Forest is applying a selection pressure towards radiation-hardened Fungi, insects, and even potentially wildlife. This seems pretty important given the ongoing risk of nuclear war.

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

#63

Post by godelski »

beders wrote: post #61
godelski wrote: post #51

> including some [wild boar] bagged as far away as Germany—continue to show abnormal and dangerous levels of radiation. This really needs to stop. I remember doing the calculation a few years back due to another HN post (and the German obsession around boar) and you'd need to eat roughly 0.55lbs (0.25kg) of the most radioactive boar you could find every day or 3lbs (1.4kg) of the median. That is to just hit EU radiat…

Oh, a nature reserve... Never mind the 200,000 people that had to be relocated... It doesn't matter how we perceive as nature coping with this disaster. The fact that it shouldn't have happened, the fact that there are still other reactors in operation of the same type, the fact that billions of tax payer dollars went into preventing more severe consequences should be a warning sign that this madness we call nuclear…

> Never mind the 200,000 people that had to be relocated...

This is definitely a traumatic event. I'm not going to downplay this or the harm done at Fukushima. But I also don't think it is helpful to exaggerate the damage. The context of the discussion here was about nature and wildlife, so that's what I talked about. If you want to bring people into the conversation then I think that's a different matter. The cost of disruption to people's lives is large, both economic, mentally, and physically. But we also need to be clear that these costs are not because of radiation. It is important because we have these same costs when it comes to matters like oil spills, ground water contamination, and other such events that are far more common but do not receive yearly articles on (despite these events happening yearly).

> What's one thing the engineers of Fukushima and Chernobyl had in common: They all thought the reactor would be safe.

This is not a good faith argument here and not actually accurate. If you would like to engage in good faith I'm more than happy to. But if you want to just vocalize your non-expertise opinions and berate anyone who doesn't agree, then that's not a conversation, that's a hostage situation and violates HN rules.

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

#64

Post by maxbond »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #42
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wood floats the same way rocks don't. It's not an energy problem, it's a time problem.

That model only works in an ocean without currents, or with exclusively favorable currents. The weaker claim of, "we can expend minimal energy by taking a very long time to get there," perhaps even wind energy, might work though. I think we'd have to answer that empirically.

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

#65

Post by godelski »

maxbond wrote: post #53
godelski wrote: post #51

> including some [wild boar] bagged as far away as Germany—continue to show abnormal and dangerous levels of radiation. This really needs to stop. I remember doing the calculation a few years back due to another HN post (and the German obsession around boar) and you'd need to eat roughly 0.55lbs (0.25kg) of the most radioactive boar you could find every day or 3lbs (1.4kg) of the median. That is to just hit EU radiat…

That might be an argument humans aren't endangered by contaminated boar, but is not an argument that the ecosystem isn't threatened. Presumably predators and scavengers are eating a significant amount of boar and other contaminated meat relative to their body weight.

If you read the second paragraph, this is addressed. If you follow the links in the BBC article you'll find data on the wildlife. The only thing abnormal about population sizes in the area is that there are a larger number of wolves than compared to non-contaminated regions. But we also need to consider that due to the size of this area, that it in essence is akin to the largest nature preserve and has far fewer human visitors. Probably important to remember that humans are a big reason for the decrease in wolf populations in most regions.

Fwiw, I did mention that the animal lives are possibly lower quality and definitely shorter lived. So I'm not quite sure what you're rebutting from my comment. It appears that you're just rephrasing part of it but without any source and clear suppositions from a misunderstanding of the data in the first paragraph I wrote.

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

#66

Post by EdwardDiego »

pfdietz wrote: post #59
jackmott42 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, burning of trees helped reduce CO2 over the long term. That's because burning is incomplete and produces charcoal. Charcoal doesn't decay, so when it is buried it semi-permanently takes carbon out of the biosphere. Over extended time, this would draw down atmospheric CO2. Some coal deposits from that period have a significant fraction of charcoal in them.

IIRC, that's lignite coal?

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

#67

Post by zdragnar »

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…

There are a number of species whose seeds don't germinate without wildfire. Not all regional climates are equal.

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

#68

Post by meschi »

whoopdedo wrote: post #9
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.

It's probably a good thing that the exclusion zone hasn't become a breeding ground for mutant radiation-resistant bacteria.

I was wondering why that would be a bad idea and how much radiation sterilization is used today. Apparently about 40-50% of medical single use products are sterilized beforehand using radiation.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/goronzy2/

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

#69

Post by maxbond »

godelski wrote: post #65
maxbond wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be an argument humans aren't endangered by contaminated boar, but is not an argument that the ecosystem isn't threatened. Presumably predators and scavengers are eating a significant amount of boar and other contaminated meat relative to their body weight.

If you read the second paragraph, this is addressed. If you follow the links in the BBC article you'll find data on the wildlife. The only thing abnormal about population sizes in the area is that there are a larger number of wolves than compared to non-contaminated regions. But we also need to consider that due to the size of this area, that it in essence is akin to the largest nature preserve and has far fewer huma…

Your claim is that bioaccumulation is not a problem because a.) It has not reached a level dangerous to humans (through direct consumption) and b.) Life is thriving in Pripyat. a.) is orthogonal, and b.) is encouraging but doesn't establish that there _isn't_ a problem here.

Mostly what I take issue to is that you're saying people need to stop being concerned about something, but the reasons you gave didn't really support that conclusion. I dunno if there's a problem here or not really, but I don't think we should dismiss it in this manner. It's sort of like the inverse of fear mongering, though fear mongering is probably more dangerous, so I only mean that directionally and not proportionally (eg I don't take issue nearly as strongly as I would a fear mongering comment, I think your comment is largely fine, but that's what I find objectionable).

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

#70

Post by greggsy »

dekhn wrote: post #31
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 con…

Presumably flowers proliferated due to insect pollinators?
Post reply on HN