Chernobyl: Environmental dead zone or eco-haven? | Hacker News Reader

Chernobyl: Environmental dead zone or eco-haven?

edition.cnn.com

36 pointsraphar17 comments

False Dichotomies: Pinnacle of the written form or brain killing mind poison?

For those interested, this PDF from the Institute of Plant Genetics and Biotechnology Slovak Academy of Sciences mentioned in the article provides a short exert on the process they used:

http://pribina.savba.sk/ugbr/tl_files/download/COST%20FA603....

The section in question is titled "Comparative proteomics of seed development of soybean in Chernobyl area" and is located on page 41 of the PDF.

> "paradoxically become a unique sanctuary for biodiversity."

Personally I see the apparent 'richness' of Chernobyl's nature as more of a reflection on how humans are using the surrounding areas than how well nature is truly doing inside the zone.

"over 40 different types of radioactivity were released after the accident" LOL

It likely means "over 40 different radioactive isotopes were released". What can you expect from CNN (or any other 'mainstream' news?

Yes indeedy. On an issue central to the future of energy policy, I feel I can expect a bit more.

1.for animals, between two evils - humans or radioctivity - the radioctivity seems to be a much lesser evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-UOHn9PvJ0

2. can't not to mention the "Roadside Picnic" (though written long before the Chernobyl)

1: Well yeah. Humans can be immediately seen to do harm (stimulus-response), radiation can't unless it's at phenomenally dangerous levels that the harm can be detected immediately. And by then there's likely been enough damage to kill the animal anyway. Animals (us included) aren't very good at connecting hugely-delayed effects to their causes. We get by with society and science.

Question: when you think of a significant industrial disaster, or say the worst industrial disaster does Bhopal come to your mind ?

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

Among the many tragedies of Bhopal one id that it has very little mind share. Except for the affected of course.

Here is an anecdote that I learned from a friend of mine who is Bulgarian. Fish markets there make it a point to tell you that their fish isn't fresh. Their major water body is the Black sea and rivers have been driving Chernobyl effluents into it. Fishes concentrate the poisons in their system. So fish, unless it is imported, is considered unsafe.

Edit: Heard in 2004 and he was living in the US then.

As a Bulgarian living in Bulgaria I can say that what your friend has told you about fishmarkets is not true. Maybe it has been at some point, but it must be twenty years since.

Can any normal tourist get inside of the area? What are the health risks of spending an afternoon there (~3 hours)? Seems like a very unique place to visit if possible and not too dangerous.

I've read accounts of tourists going there - it's fine, as long as you follow the guide's directions completely. (e.g., if you put something metal down on the ground, it's not coming back with you.)

What's wrong with putting something metal down?

I'm not a physicist, so if someone can explain why, I'd love to hear it - but basically, putting something metal down in a radioactive area means it becomes radioactive, too. I assume that the radiation transmutes metals into radioactive elements?

If you search on youtube for Pripyat, there are many videos available that shows you how's the city now.

Here's a site with pictures from a motorcyclist who went through Chernobyl: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

Wasn't that a well-crafted hoax?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com