But long-term negative effects are non-existent in fact, the accident has done more good than harm, if 'good' is measured by an increase in population density. It is known that extremely high radiation six months after the accident did reduce reproductive success and suppress population levels. In summary, chronic radiation over the 30 years since the meltdown has had no negative effects on wildlife population levels around Chernobyl. Wolf populations increased seven times compared to pre-accident levels! This is an especially helpful comparison to make because the same dependent variable is measured in both regions - track density - avoiding the sticky questions in 1) about whether reproductive success or longevity are properly accounted for.ģ) Has the density of mammals in the contaminated region decreased over the decade since the accident?Īgain, no! Even more surprisingly, wild boar, deer, and elk population levels all increased over the 10 years after the meltdown. Deer, fox, and wolves seem to be thriving whether closer or far from the reactor site. No difference in population levels were found between the contaminated and uncontaminated regions, which were natural preserves established a little distance away from Chernobyl. In contrast, the present work provides a longitudinal view over 2-3 years.Ģ) Are mammal densities in the contaminated zones less than those in nearby uncontaminated reserves? However, the earlier work assessed only 1/20 th of the animal routes examined in the new study, and also considered only one time point. This surprising finding does fly in the face of previous research that did find a negative association between radiation levels and population density. But if these latter variables were decreased while population density remained constant, this would mean that animals from outside the contamination zone were continually entering the exclusion zone to keep the mean number of tracks high. It is true that track density does not directly measure reproductive success or individual animal longevity, both of which could be affected by chronic radiation. No correlation exists between radiocaesium contamination density and the mean number of tracks per 10 km for elk, wolf, boar, deer, or fox. The scientists posed three primary questions to test the radiation-animal abundance connection:ġ) Are radiation levels in contaminated zones correlated with animal population density? This accounts for about half of the total contaminated area and contains radiation levels similar to the rest of the exclusion zone in Ukraine. To answer this question, the researchers measured population density by counting the number of animal tracks per 10 kilometers along well-known travel routes within the exclusion zone in Belarus. 3 But what about the long-term effects of the disaster on animal abundance in the region? Has the wildlife never recovered? 2 Within the first six months after the accident, massive levels of radiation suppressed the reproductive ability of deer, wolves, and fox in the area, leading to reduced population levels. Without a doubt, the Chernobyl accident was a humanitarian, ecological, and economic disaster: 31 casualties, uncounted cancer incidents, and over 10 billion dollars required for recovery. In fact, the exact opposite may be true, implying conclusions about just what is the most prominent environmental pressure preventing vibrant and diverse ecosystems. New research 1 out of Belarus contradicts previous research and common opinion that the region around Chernobyl has never regained its pre-accident levels of wildlife. At least that's been my fantastical impression of the area surrounding the reactor since I first learned of the disaster as a child.
Chernobyl, in particular, conjures images of a radiation-touched wasteland scattered with crumpled, leafless trees still in the silence of a swath of land devoid of life. The radioactive waste does not contribute to global warming, unlike fossil fuels, and some government agencies foresee nuclear energy growth as a requirement for any low-carbon energy future.īut what of the environmental risks: the low-probability, extremely high-risk chance of meltdowns and widespread radiation? Accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl dramatically sway public opinion away from nuclear options. Despite the huge capital to build a nuclear power plant, the station only requires cheap fuel and limited maintenance once up and running. In a time when countries are looking for any replacement for fossil fuels that are dwindling in supply and isolated to geopolitically unstable regions, nuclear power is an appealing alternative.
0 kommentar(er)
