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

91–100 of 169 posts

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

#91

Post by lazide »

fallingfrog wrote: post #76
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.

This doesn’t sound right. Iirc there have been many periods in earth’s history warmer than today, and carbon was part of the climate feedback for all of them, but this is the first time that warming is coming from direct forcing via co2.

This is definitely not the first time temperatures have risen due to direct co2 levels. Last time was only about 3 million years ago.

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

#92

Post by lazide »

hammock wrote: post #18
arcticbull wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If the soil was sterilized the forest would be dead. The trees need soil microbes to survive.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

est31 wrote: post #71
dekhn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah the snippet of the wikipedia page that you link is citing the paper that put the final blow to the fungal lignin breakdown hypothesis. It points out (the last point is particularly strong): * there is evidence for partial lignin breakdown in existing deposits, so we know it was a thing back then * if it were just lignin breakdown, then we'd see orders of magnitude more deposits. that is, if you look at the per y…

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by divbzero »

gleenn wrote: post #89
jvanderbot wrote: post #86

Earlier 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.

I don't think they'll get through metal and certainly not glass for a long time.

I think metal is already a target of microbial corrosion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_corrosion

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

#95

Post by taneq »

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…

How many bananas is that?

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

#97

Post by causality0 »

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…

You know it would be very cool if someone made an UE5 demo that was just a forest with a dozen or so options to change the date and see which types of vegetation appear and disappear.

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

#98

Post by nonethewiser »

peteradio wrote: post #78
gambiting wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's almost guaranteed that bacteria eating plastics will proliferate globally at some point, we've put so much of this stuff in the environment and it's just free energy ready to be consumed if your digestive system knows how.

I used to entertain this idea but I'm somewhat skeptical such a thing could proliferate, there is just not that much plastic relative to the other sources of energy an animal can evolve towards. I'd be interested to hear otherwise though.

There is tons if it some places though

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

#100

Post by eropple »

peteradio wrote: post #78
gambiting wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's almost guaranteed that bacteria eating plastics will proliferate globally at some point, we've put so much of this stuff in the environment and it's just free energy ready to be consumed if your digestive system knows how.

I used to entertain this idea but I'm somewhat skeptical such a thing could proliferate, there is just not that much plastic relative to the other sources of energy an animal can evolve towards. I'd be interested to hear otherwise though.

You don't need a ton everywhere. You just need enough in a few places for long enough.
Post reply on HN