Long-term Census Reveal Presence of Abundant Mammalian Community in the Chernobyl...

[djv8ga]

Nuclear Disaster Zone.


Not really political, but interesting & very cool IMO. I was under the impression that the area was toast for 100+ years.
http://permaculturenews.org/2015/11/...disaster-zone/

[donquixote99]

Most mammals don't live long enough to develop cancer?

You could have a 'viable' human community where everyone dies in their 40's, right?

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Most mammals don't live long enough to develop cancer?

Different animals develop different cancers @ different ages.
Not sure where you're going with that.
Mutations, stillbirth, & birth defects would be a larger concern IMO.

[bobabode]

Radioactive moose jerky. Yum.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

Different animals develop different cancers @ different ages.
Not sure where you're going with that.
Mutations, stillbirth, & birth defects would be a larger concern IMO.

Where I was going is that the animals might not have as much trouble with the radioactivity due to a smaller period of exposure. Our long lifespans would be cut shorter. but their shorter ones are not. So you could have an environment that's OK for most mammals, but not so great for people.

So, if someone liked critters more than people, they could see radioactive contamination as a good thing, all in all....

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

Nuclear Disaster Zone.


Not really political, but interesting & very cool IMO. I was under the impression that the area was toast for 100+ years.
http://permaculturenews.org/2015/11/...disaster-zone/

To anyone who feel it is safe to live there then move! I vote Vladimir lead the way.



Me and those I care about will stay here and hope it is far enough away.



Barney

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Where I was going is that the animals might not have as much trouble with the radioactivity due to a smaller period of exposure. Our long lifespans would be cut shorter. but their shorter ones are not. So you could have an environment that's OK for most mammals, but not so great for people.

So, if someone liked critters more than people, they could see radioactive contamination as a good thing, all in all....

I get you. Yeah, I don't think anyone is claiming that it's safe for anything yet. The area just appears to be healing much faster than the 'experts' predicted.
Obviously, there is much to study & my guess is nobody wants to go in there to do it.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by Oerets

To anyone who feel it is safe to live there then move! I vote Vladimir lead the way.



Me and those I care about will stay here and hope it is far enough away.



Barney

Good for you.

[Tom Joad]

There was a really cool program on PBS a while back about this:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/radio...-episode/7190/

Apparently the cancer rate among the wildlife is quite a bit higher than normal in that area. However the fact that there isn't any human interference is a big plus for the animals and far outweighs the negative impacts of the cancer.

In other words people are a bigger problem for animals than radioactivity.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

I get you. Yeah, I don't think anyone is claiming that it's safe for anything yet. The area just appears to be healing much faster than the 'experts' predicted.
Obviously, there is much to study & my guess is nobody wants to go in there to do it.

People go in there, poking around more often than you might realize. There was a movie made there a few years ago. "Top Gear" did a show in Pripyat.
There are lots of pictures taken by urban explorers from inside that place on the internet. Google it up. It's creepy as hell.

One thing is for sure; If you tell people, "Don't go in there.", they're going to go in.............