[ RadSafe ] " Chernobyl wildlife baffles biologists "

Fri Jun 8 13:24:23 CDT 2007

Hello:

Packs of wolves?  I think "packs of feral dogs" are far more likely and in
keeping with my own observations near the zone.  I took a series of rabies
shots (preventative) because the feral dogs were so numerous and aggressive.

Most of the radioactive materials (Cs + Sr) concentrate in the humus layer
of the forest soils since it has a high cation exchange capacity.  The clays
of the agricultural soils also have a high cation exchange capacity and tend
to irreversibly adsorb Cs + Sr so that they are not as biologically
available.

Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
Albuquerque & Houston

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 11:34
To: Radsafe (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] " Chernobyl wildlife baffles biologists "

For Mr. Mousseau to make his case he needs to study the populations of barn
swallow at nearby operating nuclear and non-nuclear power plants.  I'll bet
a soda that if he did he would find that the overall population at Chernobyl
is larger, perhaps much larger, than at any facility where the maintenance
department is charge with destroying the nests so there isn't unsightly bird
poop.  I suspect that if Mr. Mousseau studied adult rather than nestlings
swallows he would have found few if any abnormalities that affected the
bird's ability to fly, eat, etc., as swallows are low enough on the food
chain that the Circle of Life spins rather rapidly for them.

I actually don't have any problem believing that birds that nest in the
highest radiation areas, such as inside the sarcophagus, have lower survival
rates than those that nest miles away.  Even so, I suspect that the number
of nestlings that fledge from the sarcophagus area is much higher than the
number fledging from inside a an operating coal-fired power plant.

I would love to see more research done on wildlife in the Chernobyl area,
but I think that the final conclusion is already evident, and agrees with
what we see at places like Hanford:  wildlife can co-exist with the
contamination that keeps people away better than it can co-exist with
people.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Franta, Jaroslav
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 6:58 AM
To: Radsafe (E-mail)
Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Chernobyl wildlife baffles biologists "

Chernobyl wildlife baffles biologists;
Animals are returning to area near meltdown, but scientists are split on
their long-term fates Toronto Star, 8 June 2007 Douglas Birch, Associated
Press

PARISHEV, Ukraine -- 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. 

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 tonnes of radioactive material, would turn much of the 2,850
square-kilometre evacuated area around Chernobyl into a nuclear dead zone. 

It certainly doesn't look like one today. 

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 UN report - though they have fallen significantly since the accident. 

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. 

Biologist Robert 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 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. 

Their disagreement reflects a deeper split among biologists who study
exposure to radiation. 

Some, including 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 near the Chernobyl plant. 
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. 

Mousseau and others paint a far more pessimistic picture. 
In the March issue of the journal Biology Letters, 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 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.
----------------------------

Can anyone pls. comment on the Mousseau reports ? (Thnx)

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE

This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is
confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly
prohibited.  

AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE

Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de l'information
qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de
divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres
utilisations non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée
envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite.
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/