A new home for wild two headed cats?

[curses]

the article:

Chernobyl Area Becomes Wildlife Haven
link

PARISHEV, Ukraine (AP) - Two decades after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant sent clouds of radioactive particles drifting over the fields near her home, Maria Urupa says the wilderness is encroaching.

Packs of wolves have eaten two of her dogs, the 73-year-old says, and wild boar trample through her cornfield. And she says fox, rabbits and snakes infest the meadows near her tumbledown cottage.

"I've seen a lot of wild animals here," says Urupa, one of about 300 mostly elderly residents who insist on living in Chernobyl's contaminated evacuation zone.

The return of wildlife to the region near the world's worst nuclear power accident is an apparent paradox that biologists are trying to measure and understand.

Many assumed the 1986 meltdown of one reactor, and the release of hundreds of tons of radioactive material, would turn much of the 1,100-square-mile evacuated area around Chernobyl into a nuclear dead zone.

It certainly doesn't look like one today.

Dense forests have reclaimed farm fields and apartment house courtyards. Residents, visitors and some biologists report seeing wildlife - including moose and lynx - rarely sighted in the rest of Europe. Birds even nest inside the cracked concrete sarcophagus shielding the shattered remains of the reactor.

Wildlife has returned despite radiation levels in much of the evacuated zone that remain 10 to 100 times higher than background levels, according to a 2005 U.N. report - though they have fallen significantly since the accident, due to radioactive decay.

Some researchers insist that by halting the destruction of habitat, the Chernobyl disaster helped wildlife flourish. Others say animals may be filtering into the zone, but they appear to suffer malformations and other ills.

Both sides say more research is needed into the long-term health of a variety of Chernobyl's wildlife species, as governments around the world consider switching from fossil fuel plants, blamed for helping drive global climate change, to nuclear power.

Biologist Robert J. Baker of Texas Tech University was one of the first Western scientists to report that Chernobyl had become a wildlife haven. He says the mice and other rodents he has studied at Chernobyl since the early 1990s have shown remarkable tolerance for elevated radiation levels.

But Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina, a biologist who studies barn swallows at Chernobyl, says that while wild animals have settled in the area, they have struggled to build new populations.

Far from thriving, he says, a high proportion of the birds he and his colleagues have examined suffer from radiation-induced sickness and genetic damage. Survival rates are dramatically lower for those living in the most contaminated areas.

In explaining their starkly differing views, Baker and Mousseau criticize each other's studies as poorly designed.

But their disagreement also reflects a deeper split among biologists who study the effects of exposure to radiation. Some, like Baker, think organisms can cope with the destructive effects of radiation up to a point - beyond which they begin to suffer irreparable damage. Others believe that even low doses of radiation can trigger cancers and other illnesses.

In the Journal of Mammology in 1996, Baker and his colleagues reported that the disaster had not reduced either the diversity or abundance of a dozen species of rodents - including mice, shrews, rats and weasels - near the Chernobyl plant.

"Our studies show that a dynamic ecosystem is present in even the most radioactive habitats," they wrote.

Baker's group reported sighting red fox, gray wolf, moose, river otter, roe deer, Russian wild boar and brown hare within a six-mile radius of the plant - the most heavily contaminated area.

Genetic tests showed Chernobyl's animals suffered some damage to their DNA, Baker and his colleagues reported. But they said overall it didn't seem to hurt wildlife populations.

"The resulting environment created by the Chernobyl disaster is better for animals," Baker told the Associated Press in a phone interview.

Critics point out that Baker's work has been funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, which some view as pro-nuclear. Baker defended the government connection, saying, "We have never been asked to come up with any specific conclusions, just do honest work." He also said his work has been peer-reviewed.

Mousseau and his colleagues have painted a far more pessimistic picture.

In the journal Biology Letters in March, a group led by Anders Moller, from Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said that in a study of 7,700 birds examined since 1991 they found 11 rare or unknown abnormalities in a population of Chernobyl's barn swallows.

Roughly one-third of 248 Chernobyl nestlings studied were found to have ill-formed beaks, albino feathers, bent tail feathers and other malformations. Mousseau was a co-author of the report.

In other studies, Mousseau - whose work is funded by the National Science Foundation and National Geographic Society - and his colleagues have found increased genetic damage, reduced reproductive rates and what he calls "dramatically" higher mortality rates for birds living near Chernobyl.

The work suggests, he said, that Chernobyl is a "sink" where animals migrate but rapidly die off. Mousseau suspects that relatively low-level radiation reduces the level of antioxidants in the blood, which can lead to cell damage.

"From every rock we turn over, we find consequences," he told the Associated Press in a phone interview. "These reports of wildlife flourishing in the area are completely anecdotal and have no scientific basis."

While the experts debate, Maria Urupa, harvests tomatoes from her garden, buys fish from the nearby Pripyat River and brews moonshine vodka.

Eating locally produced food is risky, health experts agree, because plants and animals can concentrate radioactive materials as they cycle through the food chain. Doe she fear the effects of her exposure to radiation?

"Radiation? No!" she said. "What humans do? Yes."

Everything we were taught about the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster is along the lines of what Mousseau found. I mean, who can even imagine that the birds nesting in the cracked sarcophagus wouldn't have some sort of genetic abnormality in the best case scenario? Now I guess I should say that I'm not surprised that humans stayed, and there's no shock at all that the animals returned. An exclusion zone with gates and guards sure isn't going to keep them out. I am surprised, however, to see that they are able to live in such a radioactive area in the six mile zone. That's one tough group of critters.

[Ymir's blood]

I suppose only time will tell insofar as the animals are concerned. It seems like the only way we'll really know would be to track the animals from generation to generation. Otherwise it seems like it would hard to determine whether the population consists of 'native' animals or incoming ones.

Oh and I wonder what radioactive moonshine is like.

[Angakuk]

Well, the two studies mentioned appear to be studies of different populations of wildlife. Is it possible that birds are more sensitive to the effects of radiation than some other animals? Are there different proximity issues? Certainly it would seem that animals nesting on or in the reactor itself would be at a higher risk.

I understand that radioactive moonshine gets you lit up faster.

[livius drusus]

I read an article a while back mentioning the return of the Russian bear to Chernobyl. Apparently they're getting decimated by trophy hunters elsewhere, so the radiation sink must look damn good by comparison.

Fascinating article, minus.

[curses]

Originally Posted by Ymir's blood

I suppose only time will tell insofar as the animals are concerned. It seems like the only way we'll really know would be to track the animals from generation to generation. Otherwise it seems like it would hard to determine whether the population consists of 'native' animals or incoming ones.

Indeed. I would love to see if any of the mutations actually turn out to be beneficial for the inhabitants in the long run, though I'd imagine they wouldn't.

[quote=Angakuk]Well, the two studies mentioned appear to be studies of different populations of wildlife. Is it possible that birds are more sensitive to the effects of radiation than some other animals? Are there different proximity issues? Certainly it would seem that animals nesting on or in the reactor itself would be at a higher risk.[/qoute]
That's an interesting point. I'm sure there's more to the studies, but they seem to be focusing on the groups of animals that benefit their point of view.

I understand that radioactive moonshine gets you lit up faster.

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I read an article a while back mentioning the return of the Russian bear to Chernobyl. Apparently they're getting decimated by trophy hunters elsewhere, so the radiation sink must look damn good by comparison.

Fascinating article, minus.

That's such a shame. Even if the Russian government decides to protect them, there really is nothing they can do to curb the hunting. It sure didn't work in Africa for the rhinos and elephants. If there's money to be made, people will find a way.

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by curses

Indeed. I would love to see if any of the mutations actually turn out to be beneficial for the inhabitants in the long run, though I'd imagine they wouldn't.

I would imagine that any beneficial mutations that cropped up would be screwed up by further mutations in later generations. I'm no expert by any means, but natural selection seems to be based on the principle that the rate of change is rather slow. I'm not sure how possible it is for an organism to develop resistance to radiation. If so, that would definitely be a benefit to its offspring.

[curses]

Originally Posted by Ymir's blood

I would imagine that any beneficial mutations that cropped up would be screwed up by further mutations in later generations. I'm no expert by any means, but natural selection seems to be based on the principle that the rate of change is rather slow. I'm not sure how possible it is for an organism to develop resistance to radiation. If so, that would definitely be a benefit to its offspring.

One word: Cockroaches

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Ymir's blood

I'm not sure how possible it is for an organism to develop resistance to radiation.

The bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans is resistant to high levels of radiation. Of course, it's probably a side-effect which came about based on the practical application of resistance to desiccation*, a typical hazard of living in very arid regions.

*Because you don't stumble upon 5,000 Gray Units (10 Gy will kill a human) of radiation in nature.

[The Lone Ranger]

Ironically, perhaps, some of the last places you'd think of turn out to be important wildlife reserves. The key factor is that humans are kept out, or at least prevented from disrupting the habitat(s) in question. So it doesn't surprise me that the area around Chernobyl has become something of a wildlife reserve.


Large military reserves can be important de facto wildlife reserves. For example, Fort Bragg in North Carolina is 161,000 acres in size. Since this land is used for Army training exercises, it's protected from "development." This means it's one of the few remaining areas where the critically-endangered Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris) forests have been preserved in a more or less undisturbed state. Since the longleaf pine forests are vital habitat for the critically-endangered Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Fort Bragg, quite by accident, has turned out to be vitally important to the survival of the forests and of the bird.

Unfortunately, under the Bush Administration, the Pentagon has been lobbying hard to get itself exempt from obeying the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.



War can also cause the creation of de facto wildlife preserves. For example, the Korean Demilitarized Zone is teeming with wildlife. That's because the zone is heavily mined and few humans ever enter it. As a result, the ecosystems of the DMZ are perhaps the healthiest and most diverse of the entire peninsula.


In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, rebel activity has prevented people from settling in the region just west of Lake Tanganyika for some 50 years. According to Andre Plumptre, director of the Wildlife Conservation Society's Albertine Rift Program in Uganda, the forest would probably have been all but destroyed by human settlements by now, were it not for the rebels in the forest.



Of course, when animals are caught between the two sides in a war zone (as happened with the Asiatic Elephants in Vietnam), the results can be disastrous for them. Still, ironically, war is sometimes good for wildlife populations.

Cheers,

Michael