Thirty years ago, a remote town in Ukraine
saw a catastrophic nuclear disaster. Now,
a research team has documented that the site
is home to a thriving wildlife population.
In April of 1986, an explosion at the Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Plant resulted in the worst
nuclear accident in history. The resulting
fire lasted 10 days, and released an untold
amount of radioactive materials into the atmosphere
to gradually fall
out over the surrounding countryside.
An area stretching about a thousand square
miles around the disaster site is still designated
the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, unfit for human
habitation. But research over the years has
shown that in our absence, wildlife is thriving.
A study from 2015 found substantial animal
tracks, and as of April 2016, a University
of Georgia team has documented 14 species
of mammals using remote station cameras. Mostly
wolves and raccoon dogs, aka tanuki.
The cameras were set up for a week each at
94 sites and baited with a fatty acid scent
to attract animals – particularly carnivores.
The team was focused on the top of the food
chain because these critters receive the most
radiation exposure: Directly from the air,
soil, and water, as all animals would,
but
also from the contamination accumulated in their prey.
The international science community is still
trying to figure out how much damage all the
radiation from Chernobyl has caused – and is still
causing. And, OK, radiation is all around
us – all of us. Light, heat, radio waves,
and microwaves are non-ionizing radiation:
They carry enough energy to excite atoms,
but not to break them apart.
But x-rays, gamma rays, and emissions from
radioactive materials are ionizing radiation:
They can bust electrons right out of their
atoms. On a cellular level, that’s what
scientists refer to as bad. Ionizing radiation
can break apart the genes that tell your cells
and systems how to function, causing all kinds
of health problems.
But there’s no consensus on how much damage
different levels of exposure can cause in
the long run. There isn’t enough data to
draw from. All we can do is watch the populations
affected – human and wildlife alike – and
wait.
The team from UGA says that higher levels
of contamination didn’t suppress wildlife
populations. Rather, the animals they observed
went wherever food and water could be found,
regardless. They’re hoping that further
studies will measure the animals’ health
and survival rates.
So what do you think about all this? Would
you tour Chernobyl? Get in touch and let us
know. And for lots more about what’s going
on in science right now, head to our home
planet: now.howstuffworks.com.
