<Peak Oil Booklet - Chapter 4: What Should We Do Now? The Oil Drum The Status of Canadian Oil Production>
<DrumBeat: August 17, 2007 DrumBeat DrumBeat: August 19, 2007>

155 comments on DrumBeat: August 18, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Substrate on August 18, 2007 - 9:18am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6946210.stm

Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven'

In April 1986, reactor number four at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded.

After the accident, traces of radioactive deposits were found in nearly every country in the northern hemisphere.
...
"Recent conclusions from the UN Chernobyl Forum and reports in the popular media concerning the effects of radiation from Chernobyl has left the impression that the exclusion zone is a thriving ecosystem, filled with an increasing number of rare species," they wrote.

Instead, they added: "Species richness, abundance and population density of breeding birds decreased with increasing levels of radiation."

The study, which recorded 1,570 birds from 57 species, found that the number of birds in the most contaminated areas declined by 66% compared with sites that had normal background radiation levels.

It also reported a decline of more than 50% in the range of species as radiation levels increase.
...
Professor Mousseau acknowledged Professor Baker's description: "It is true that the Chernobyl region gives the appearance of a thriving ecosystem because of its protection from other human activities.

"However, when you do controlled ecological studies, what we see is a very clear signature of negative effects of contamination on diversity and abundance of organisms.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Cid Yama on August 18, 2007 - 9:23am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Also Mobile species can and probably do move into the area totally unaware of the radiation only to die later. I imagine we don't have a reproducing resident population of species.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
River on August 18, 2007 - 9:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Cid, no offense intended but what you 'imagine' is not relevant. Many still 'imagine' our moon to be made of green cheese, while some still cling to the notion that the earth is flat...:)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Cid Yama on August 18, 2007 - 10:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

'Imagine' my hand with most of it's fingers folded into a fist upturned. ;)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
River on August 18, 2007 - 10:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Would this imagination be 'Sid indicating his IQ'? :0

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Cid Yama on August 18, 2007 - 11:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

How could anyone compete with a schoolyard wit such as yours.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sendoilplease on August 18, 2007 - 10:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"I imagine we don't have a reproducing resident population of species."

Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation

As humans were evacuated from the area 20 years ago, animals moved in. Existing populations multiplied and species not seen for decades, such as the lynx and eagle owl, began to return.

There are even tantalising footprints of a bear, an animal that has not trodden this part of Ukraine for centuries...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4923342.stm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on August 18, 2007 - 11:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

thats the OLD news article based on the OLD study that the parent post is pointing out that is flawed by pointing to a NEWER study on the same subject.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
cycling in hollywood on August 18, 2007 - 11:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

We can conclude that even though background radiation may be harmful to wildlife, it is far less so than the effects of sustained human habitation. So the articles are both correct.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on August 18, 2007 - 12:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

We can conclude that even though background radiation may be harmful to wildlife, it is far less so than the effects of sustained human habitation.

That just doesn't make any sense. Background radiation is radiation that is present everywhere, all the time. You are never free of background radiation. All life evolved in the presence of background radiation. If you are going to debate the harm of background radiation then you must also include the benefits of background radiation. Background radiation is partially responsible for the divergence of life because is responsible for some, but not all, of the small mutations that make evolution possible.

I think it is pointless to debate the harm background radiation causes. It has always been there and it always will be there. What you must be concerned with is radiation that is above bacground radiation.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Substrate on August 18, 2007 - 1:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Deep breath, Ron...it's pretty obvious he meant the radiation from Chernobyl and not normal Earth background radiation. That is to say, if Chernobyl radiation and humans got into a fight about who could kill off more wildlife, humans would win. The animals that seem to be doing better are the larger ones that humans readily kill off or destroy the habitat of...they are doing better against the radiation than they were against the humans, but worse off for having the radiation than they would be without the radiation.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on August 18, 2007 - 3:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

No, you take a deep breath Sub. I am well aware of what he meant. My point was that he was using the wrong term. Background radiation has onely one meaning. You cannot use the term "background radiation" when you are talking about something other than "background radiation". It is a little like using the word "literally" for a metaphore. As in: "We literall beat the crap out of them." That must have stunk up the place.

If you measure the radiation anywhere near Chernoble you will likely get a reading that is above normal background radiation. And if you continue measuring as you move away from Chernoble the radiation will drop until you only measure background radiation. At that point you will have reached the limits of the contaminated area.

Bottom line, you should not use the term literally when you are speaking metaphorically and you should not use the term "background radiation" when you are talking about something other than background radition. Unswearstand?

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GreyZone on August 18, 2007 - 5:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Background radiation is the radiation in the "background" of a given area as opposed to radiation from a specific source. Fallout from a nuclear weapon is considered "background" radiation. Background radiation varies everywhere on earth, particularly related to altitude but also related to other environmental factors.

When they use the term background radiation here they are using it exactly as we used it at the Defense Nuclear Agency and the US Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency when discussing fallout radiation in addition to the natural background radiation.

In short, you seem to be confused about natural background radiation and background radiation.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on August 18, 2007 - 6:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Actually it seems you do not understand what the term means.
By the false definition you just posted people might as well give up on giger counters cause as soon as radiation is released it becomes background normal and thus harmless.

The actual meaning of background radiation is the very small amount that is Naturally present in the environment. This natural level is what life on this planet has evolved to survive under. When some country sets off a nuke or a nuclear plant has a accident like Chernobyl the immediate area or where the fallout lands becomes many times more radioactive then it would be compared to the normal background level by a artificial means. This is what is commonly referred to as radiation, This is what kills.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on August 18, 2007 - 6:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Apparently it does not kill that much. At least this is what the article showed.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on August 18, 2007 - 7:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thinking in absolutes aren't we?
Sure they might not be on the ground rotting dead, But as the same article showed with the mentioned birds they are suffering by gaining bad mutations and i am sure some might even be suffering from other ailments as well. Or are you focusing too much on the nice picture of that horse?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
reddot on August 18, 2007 - 3:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The terrible myth that radiation is radiation...that all radiation is equivalent...was and is deliberately disseminated to assure public acceptance. Really, nothing of concern here, folks; our carefully selected and hired experts agreee much ado about nothing. Trust that we know best.

Especially, particulate v gasseous sources yield very different outcomes.

"Low-level" and "threshold level" assurances are also mostly the workproduct of spinmeisters.

Also, the successive, daughter products are far less studied yet very troublesome effects are known, just not disseminated. Who besides vested interests will spend the money to disseminate information? especially propaganda?

Recall that the horrendous effects of smoking tobacco were mostly known and disseminated [!] in the 1940s. Yet the data was then quashed and disappeared for 30 more years.

Best to take your own look at the subject.Results will vary with your own diligence and your own evaluation of source.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Cid Yama on August 19, 2007 - 1:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The scary part is that someone appears to have a vested interest in convincing people that radiation isn't really all that harmful. WTF! Maybe someone wanting to be able to use a new generation of tactical nukes.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Bitteroldcoot on August 18, 2007 - 12:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I work in the radiation protection field (as a Health Physicist).

I have never been impressed (and constantly appalled) by the way the MSM handles any subject. This article is no exception. Without actual data documenting what the exposure levels are, this is just fear mongering.

The paper in question is behind a pay wall, but the abstract give some hints.

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/u231u84367n650u4/

"We conducted standardized point counts of breeding birds at forest sites around Chernobyl differing in level of background radiation by over three orders of magnitude. Species richness, abundance and population density of breeding birds decreased with increasing level of radiation, even after controlling statistically for the effects of potentially confounding factors such as soil type, habitat and height of the vegetation. This effect was differential for birds eating soil invertebrates living in the most contaminated top soil layer."

The phrase “ by over three orders of magnitude” implies that hot spots exist in the zone and that those spots are hazardous, but without the actual background radiation reading, both articles are pretty much useless. Also the question of chemical toxicity does not seem to be addressed. If I sprinkle heavy metals on your breakfast cereal, you are not going to be a happy camper, regardless of whether they are radioactive or not.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Substrate on August 18, 2007 - 1:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Here's an interesting site I ran across a few years ago about someone who motorcycled around Chernobyl: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
john milton on August 18, 2007 - 3:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Seems as if this site was a hoax, and that the photos were taken while she was on a bus tour

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Filatova

You'll notice on her site that the motorcycle does not appear in any of the photos taken inside the exclusion zone.

Such tours are still available, no need to be an outlaw biker:

http://www.kievtravel.com.ua/kievtours.php#tour9

This being said I think the site got lots of hits and raised awareness of the effects of the disaster

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
petersburger on August 18, 2007 - 5:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You'll notice on her site that the motorcycle does not appear in any of the photos taken inside the exclusion zone.

Actually, photos of the motorcycle appear here, here and here. Pretty sobering pictures; makes you wonder if this is how US cities will look like around 2100.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on August 18, 2007 - 6:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Interesting. None of the photos showing the motorcycle look definitively Chernobyl, though. They could have been taken anywhere.

One of the links to the Wikipedia article says she can't even ride a motorcycle.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on August 18, 2007 - 7:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The last one is definately NOT in the exclusion zone. Given Ukranian's climate 23 years without maintenance would have ruined any road. This one looks quite well maintained.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
john milton on August 18, 2007 - 9:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I did see those 3 pics, but they seemed too "generic" to me too. I've seen worse in rural Florida last time I was there... :}

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
snuffy on August 19, 2007 - 3:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi,Bitteroldcoot,
Did you spend any time in the 80-90s as a contract H.P. tech type? {myself,37 refueling outages @ 17 stations,and a couple of years DoDfema@ Nightmare Island Radcon}

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Bitteroldcoot on August 19, 2007 - 11:13am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Never worked an outage. I was more hands on 15 years ago, but now I just fly a desk.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

155 comments on DrumBeat: August 18, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version