Chernobyl not a 'wildlife haven' (What a surprise!)

[Guest guest]

By Mark Kinver

Science and nature reporter, BBC News

 

 

 

Scientific opinion is divided on the impact of Chernobyl on wildlife

The idea that the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power

plant has created a wildlife haven is not scientifically justified, a

study says.

 

Recent studies said rare species had thrived despite raised radiation

levels as a result of no human activity.

 

But scientists who assessed the 1986 disaster's impact on birds said

the ecological effects were " considerably greater than previously

assumed " .

 

The findings appear in the Royal Society's journal, Biology Letters.

 

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.

 

The paper's authors, Anders Moller of University Pierre and Marie

Curie, France, and Tim Mousseau from the University of South

Carolina, US, said their research did not support the idea that low-

level radiation was not affecting animals.

 

 

 

" 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.

 

 

Photos showing normal (left) and partial albino barn swallow

 

 

Enlarge Image

 

 

The findings build on a previous study of barn swallows in the

affected area, which showed that the number of the birds declined

sharply in contaminated areas.

 

The birds' decline was probably the result of depressed level of

antioxidants after its long migration back to the area, making it

more vulnerable to the low-level radiation, the researchers

concluded.

 

" It suggests to us that barn swallows are not alone; there are many

other species that appear to be affected in a similar way, " Professor

Mousseau told BBC News.

 

" This paper also suggests that birds feeding on insects that are

living in the upper surface of the soil, where contaminates are

highest, seem to be most likely to be missing or depressed. "

 

He added that they were currently carrying out research to find out

whether the decline was a result of the birds eating contaminated

insects, or whether it was a result of fewer insects living in

affected areas.

 

" We are also looking for funding to expand the range of ecological

studies to include invertebrates, as well as plants and animals. "

 

Radioactive retreat

 

A recent paper published in the American Scientist magazine suggested

that plants and animals were better off in the exclusion zone than

specimens outside the 30km radius surrounding the site of the

destroyed nuclear reactor.

 

 

 

 

How wildlife is coping inside the exclusion zone

 

One of the paper's co-authors, Robert Baker from the Texas Tech

University, said that the benefits for wildlife from the lack of

human activity outweighed the risks of low-level radiation.

 

Writing on his university web page, Professor Baker said: " The

elimination of human activities such as farming, ranching, hunting

and logging are the greatest benefits.

 

" It can be said that the world's worst nuclear power plant disaster

is not as destructive to wildlife populations as are normal human

activities. "

 

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.

 

" We clearly need to be applying scientific method to ecological

studies before we can conclude, based on anecdotal observations, that

there are no consequences. "