Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wildlife Defies Chernobyl Radiation

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the comeback-trails dept.

612

An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports that wildlife has reappeared in the Chernobyl region even with high levels of radiation. Populations of animals both common and rare have increased substantially and there are tantalizing reports of bear footprints and confirmed reports of large colonies of wild boars and wolves. These animals are radioactive but otherwise healthy. A large number of animals died initially due to problems like destroyed thyroid glands but their offspring seem to be physically healthy. Experiments have shown the DNA strands have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction. It is remarkable that such a phenomenon has occurred contrary to common assumptions about nuclear waste. The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers"

cancel ×

612 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

no worries (5, Funny)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170073)

confirmed reports of large colonies of wild boars and wolves...have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction.

We're fine until we have confirmed reports of colonies of large wild boars and wolves

In Other News.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170110)

Earlier in a village near the borders of the Amazon River, an entire village has seem to be eaten by mutated phirahna. Which apparently can now crawl on land....

Re:no worries (5, Funny)

cazbar (582875) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170166)

Buttercup: Westley, what about the R.O.U.S.'s?
Westley: Rodents Of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist.

Re:no worries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170282)

I was thinking of Princess Mononoke.

Re:no worries (1)

afish40 (774995) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170294)

Wow, I just finished watching that movie not five minutes before reading the summary. Worry not, I'm sure Lady Eboshi's riflemen will make swift work of those pesky gods.

Monty Pythons Meets News Journalist (5, Funny)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170079)

"radioactive but otherwise healthy"

I recall a certain knight... a black one... who expressed similar optimism in the face of suffering personal maladies.

Re:Monty Pythons Meets News Journalist (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170155)

'Tis but an extra arm!

Shame about the humans (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170081)


thats great about the wildlife , its a shame the same couldnt be said about the children and their offspring [ccp-intl.org] for generations to come, of course we need more power stations because they are the cheapest form of power, right [zeenews.com] ?

Re:Shame about the humans (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170109)


Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true

Re:Shame about the humans (2, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170267)

Ah yes. Flamebait = I disagree.

I for one, disagree, with this simplistic argument. For example, when we use coal or fossil fuels, more damage is done, but it is distributed, and less visible (and easy to take pictures of the victims).

Nonetheless, there is no way in hell the above post is flamebait.

But ... (5, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170082)

They have only whitnessed this over how many generations? I would imagine with every offspring, you have a handful more mutations. After a while, you have oatmeal.

Re:But ... (1)

DesireCampbell (923687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170097)

I like oatmeal :)

Re:But ... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170153)

I like oatmeal :)

You must be new here. That's supposed to be:

I like oatmeal, you insensitive clod!

Then, depending on the mood of the mods, you get hammered with Offtopic and/or Redundant, or you escape lucky with only some worthless Funny upmods. Nice try, though, for a n00b.

Re:But ... (2, Funny)

Chr0nik (928538) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170160)

Goodbye Africa, Russians will soon be making a mint selling exotic hunting trips to bag 4 eyed bears, and boars with an arrays of tusks down thier backs. Oh, and Fishing trips for 3 eyed trout of springfield fame!

I cant wait till they start selling mutant bear rugs on ebay.

Re:But ... (5, Informative)

dsci (658278) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170175)

I remember reading about thirteen years ago something similar about the Hiroshima radiation results on humans. The folks that were alive when irradiated had all sorts of the expected problems, and their kids too but to a lesser extent. The grandkids (and subsequent offspring) were showing no signs of the exposure.

Re:But ... (5, Funny)

modecx (130548) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170219)

The grandkids (and subsequent offspring) were showing no signs of the exposure.

Just to be clear, we are talking about the same Japan, right?

Re:But ... (4, Insightful)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170275)

pssst. You're usually supposed to provide a counter-example. Otherwise, it becomes two non-experts slapping each other's wrists.

Re:But ... (2, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170319)

Okay [amazon.com]

Re:But ... (5, Insightful)

Vreejack (68778) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170298)

No. Every generation tends to get rid of bad mutations. It's called natural selection. While a few alarming but non-fatal mutations will occasionally be expressed, most mutations will simply result in reduced fertility due to terminated abnormal pregnancy. But wild animals are generally fecund enough to make up for the losses.

Consider that the average human conception has about three dangerous mutations even without Chernobyl. Why aren't we oatmeal? Because a goodly percentage of conceptions never make it past the blastocyst stage due to excessive nasty chromosomal damage, while we lucky survivors had fewer.

No suprise (2, Interesting)

hsmith (818216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170083)

I am sure there were horrible mutations at first, but mother nature has a strange ability to adapt rather well. I am sure their genetics are altered in strange ways, but I am sure they will live on.

Re:No suprise (-1, Troll)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170249)

The continued existence of people like you who are otherwise retarded yet maintain a semblence of normalcy and even occasionally a spark of something that would be called brilliance by a less observant man is a testament to this very fact.

God bless evolution.

Re:No suprise (4, Interesting)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170323)

I highly doubt this has anything to do with mother nature adapting in a relatively short period of time. Stuff like that is for comic books. Radiation levels, while still incredibly unhealthy, have dropped considerably.

I would imagine animals and plantlife are not thriving or living as well as they should be. Radiation levels in outlaying areas have probbaly dropped to levels that allow life to screw faster then it is consumed by disease and cancer.

Heck people that lived in the chemical waste dump of Love Canal could still have kids... but in a toxic situation like that you're gon'a have a flipper baby or two, and life expectancy is going to be fairly bad.

This woman motorcycled through Chernobyl not to recently. In many parts radiation levels were safe enough for her to travel around. As I recall she carried a geiger counter, but didn't wear a radiation suit. She didn't venture around the epicenter of disaster, but she took a lot of rad photos, and saw wild life.
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/jour nal/articles.html [angelfire.com]

But who knows, perhaps radiation has produced a race of super bears which are immune to nuclear weapons. If so, someone should notify Steven Colbert.

I apologize in advance (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170084)

In Soviet Russia, wildlife irradiates you. . .

Re:I apologize in advance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170132)

Looooooooool, too bad there're no moderation points at hand when needed xD

becuase it HAS to be done.... (-1, Redundant)

Madmongo (947123) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170085)

I for one welcome our giant radioactive animal overlords...

Is there a name for this? (5, Insightful)

wombatmobile (623057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170086)

He has found ample evidence of DNA mutations, but nothing that affected the animals' physiology or reproductive ability. "Nothing with two heads," he says.

It's as if the positive changes are being selected in favor of the negative changes.

Re:Is there a name for this? (1, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170099)

It's called survival of the fittest.

The mutations that were seriously debelitating didn't survive long enough to breed.

Re:Is there a name for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170128)

*WOOOOSH*

Heads up, 'cause I think you missed something.

Re:Is there a name for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170184)

Nope... it missed him. :(

*reloads*

Re:Is there a name for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170309)

I don't think so. Honestly, many people refer to evolution as some sort of drop-in replacement for intelligent design. They speak as if evolution is an intelligent process, an engineer that improves generations as it sees fit, reading their genetic code. The common discussion of evolution generally leaves little question in my mind that people support it because they think that supporting it makes them intelligent, not becuase they have any understanding of it whatsoever.

My guess is that the OP was saying something akin to "yeah, evolution made them better." Honestly, not that many generations have passed, so, I wouldn't expect anything so radical to appear yet.

Are you going out to the club looking for two-headed women to reproduce with tonight? Do you think that a bunch of wild boars are looking for two-headed boars?

Re:Is there a name for this? (5, Funny)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170125)

"It's as if the positive changes are being selected in favor of the negative changes."

It's simple really... the creatures that survived were more intelligently designed than those that died.

At least get the argument right! (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170255)

The ones that lived had less corruption of the intelligent design.

Re:Is there a name for this? (3, Funny)

Spasmodeus (940657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170206)

You say that as though having two heads is a bad thing.

I, for one... (-1, Offtopic)

Solra Bizna (716281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170087)

I, for one, welcome our new radioactive animal overlords.

-:sigma.SB

Too Late... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170146)

Animal Overlord: Yea... I don't know how to quite put it. However, we already have someone opening the doors for us. Since of course we dont have opposible thumbs as of yet...

Cowering Human: I knew i shouldn't have gotten out of bed this morning....

Disposal of nuclear waste could be trivial (2, Funny)

mark-t (151149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170088)

... with a space elevator. Get it into space, then use a disposable cargo unit to send it towards the sun.

Or simply... (1)

MacDork (560499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170117)

build the rocket out of nuclear waste and fire that at the sun ;-)

Re:Disposal of nuclear waste could be trivial (1)

InfiniteWisdom (530090) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170199)

Everytime someone says the word "nuclear" someone says "just drop it into the sun". Well, anything launched from the earth would still have earth's orbital velocity of about 30 km/sec. Braking in space is just as hard as accelerating, so it would still take quite a bit of rocket power to send the junk into the sun, so it's not quite "trivial".

Re:Disposal of nuclear waste could be trivial (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170220)

Perhaps you missed the bit where I mentioned "space elevator".

Re:Disposal of nuclear waste could be trivial (1)

Mr Pippin (659094) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170279)

Which doesn't negate the Earth's orbital velocity. Perhaps you are thinking of an Earth based rail launcher?

Re:Disposal of nuclear waste could be trivial (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170287)

How does a space elevator negate the speed of the earth? Whether you get it to space via rocket, elevator, or goat on steroids, the sun orbits the sun at the same speed.

Re:Disposal of nuclear waste could be trivial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170321)

Perhaps you missed the bit where I mentioned "space elevator".

Yeah, and building one of those is not trivial at all.

Unless you've already got one and you just haven't told anyone yet.

Re:Disposal of nuclear waste could be trivial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170236)

Okay, well... It would also be "trivial" with a phaser gun set to disentegrate. Probably a mage using "limited wish" could get rid of it too.

Re:Disposal of nuclear waste could be trivial (1)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170306)

Why content ourselves with spreading radioactive waste all over the former Soviet Union, when we could irradiate the whole atmosphere!

Seriously, I'm all for nuclear power. But sending a few kilograms of plutonium into space every now and then is risky enough, much less tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste.

Re:Disposal of nuclear waste could be trivial (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170324)

Strangely enough, expelling stuff from the solar system requires less energy than putting it into the sun from Earth orbit, or so I'm told.

Probably landing it somewhere else we're unlikely to visit soon, like Venus, or Iran, would be better.

OMG Bearzilla (3, Funny)

Mr_Tulip (639140) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170089)

"The bear prints appear identical to the native brown bear, except that they seemingly belong to a 30 foot high specimen"
the lead scientist was heard to say.

There are also footprints belonging to a giant, dinosaur-like creature.

Eating Sheep (0, Redundant)

Etherwalk (681268) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170093)

I for one welcome our new radioactive bear overl...

wait...

That would make me a conformist to the mocking of conformity that is a slashdot hallmark... meaning a sheep.

Do radioactive bears eat sheep?

Doh.

Wow! What a cuute sheep... (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170288)

I think I'll name it "Running Gag"

Terminology Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170094)

Experiments have shown the DNA strands have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction.

As a biologist, this is some of the worst phrasing I've ever seen.

Turing Japanese? (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170096)

Godzilla vs Russian-Wolfzilla?

scary part is, migratory animals; imagine a goose with bird flu getting a few random extra mutations.

Re:Turing Japanese? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170303)

RETARD, its UKRAINE! Stupid ass dumb fucking idiot.

Don't insult my mother country like that (im ukrainian).

So what, i was born in Kiev in 1988, no1 cares that i have 6 penises and my thyroid gland is 64 times the normal size. As long as i can get 6 girls pregnant at once, im still healthy, right? Just need that iodine to fix the fucking thyroid cancer hehehe *sigh*

Interesting strategy (1, Insightful)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170102)

"disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers"

Hmm.. increasing mutation rates where they are already sky-high, as opposed to the conventional wisdom of minimizing exposure.

It's like adding nature to nature. I like it.

DNA can repair itself, Life will survive! (4, Informative)

Proudrooster (580120) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170104)

Not all damage to DNA from radiation is harmful. Cells have repair systems and can quickly repair breaks in DNA, with no long-term cellular consequence. Alternatively, the repair may not return the DNA to its original form, but may retain its integrity. If cellular damage is not repaired, it may prevent the cell from surviving or reproducing, or it may result in a viable but modified cell. These two outcomes have different results, leading either to deterministic or stochastic effects [Court of Appeals, 1999, pp. 37, 38].

Source: http://www.yuccamountain.org/price003.htm [yuccamountain.org]

Re:DNA can repair itself, Life will survive! (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170177)

Not surprising to hear - isn't that the whole reason radiation works as a cancer treatment? It kills/damages all the cells in an area, but healthy cells bounce back while cancer cells can't fix themselves.

It's like that at the Hanford Reservation (3, Insightful)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170105)

Leaking tanks of high-level bombmaking waste have made a huge area undevelopable. The animals are pleased as punch with this state of affairs.

Re:It's like that at the Hanford Reservation (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170190)

Leaking tanks of high-level bombmaking waste have made a huge area undevelopable. The animals are pleased as punch with this state of affairs.

Except the ones that died of radiation sickness, cancer, or non-viable mutation, of course. They're not so happy about it.

Re:It's like that at the Hanford Reservation (1)

Chr0nik (928538) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170264)

I notice that neither of you thus far, have provided sources for your hanford information. I heard of the employee compensation program, but nothing of animal benefits or problems within the reserve. There are watchdog groups that did a lot of complaining early on, but as of late most of them are quiet. There's a lot of information on hanfords enrichment operations, and the waste produced from energy production, but almost nothing of the waste from their bomb making operations.

Re:It's like that at the Hanford Reservation (1)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170316)

Their families have gotten over it and are no longer wearing black armbands, or so I've been told. Seriously though, it's a pathetic fallacy; the question isn't whether the animals are happy, but whether wildlife is thriving. It doesn't seem too implausible that humans are a greater threat to wildlife than nuclear waste.

That doesn't sound so good (5, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170106)

It's not hard to imagine many of the conceptions about radiation exposure may have been a bit over estimated, simply because nobody has really been willing to undergo an experiment of that caliber. I would not believe the animals are enjoying their radiation poisoning however until I was able to ask them.

Re:That doesn't sound so good (1)

MOBE2001 (263700) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170185)

I would not believe the animals are enjoying their radiation poisoning however until I was able to ask them.

Reporter: "Well, Mr. Horse. How did you like that heavy dose of radiation?

Mr. Horse: "Hmmmmm... No Sir. I didn't like it.

Re:That doesn't sound so good (1)

cnflctd (69843) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170228)

I would not believe the animals are enjoying their radiation poisoning

Mr. Wolf: Why, yes, I am enjoying not having my pelt nailed to a fence by the radiation-phobic pest control guys. Better get out of here now before your balls start mutating on you. heh-heh

Can we use it for good? (3, Interesting)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170238)

This is ENTIRELY hypothetical...

But say we take, I dunno, the whole planet...and just douse it in some radiation. Just enough to cause a variety of small, minor mutations in a very large (or the entire) population.

1) Any ones that result in sterility are gone, end of story...

2) Lots of small minor mutations is more like tickling the DNA, whereas massive exposure and major mutations is more like kicking it. This results in a greater survival ratio.

Transiently accelerate evolution, yanno? Maybe the dinosaurs didn't all die off, but collectively evolved one day when the magnetic poles flipped, dropping the protection from the Sun's radiation, and everyone was exposed to just a bit too much radiation. *shrugs*

Regardless, I think it's almost dishonorable not to study the effect radiation had on nature. Those poor cells are suffering, aren't they? Don't make them suffer for nothing.

So we may end up with REAL Chernobyl mutants... (1)

Spasmodeus (940657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170108)

...before they finally get around to releasing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. [stalker-game.com]

Glowland. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170115)

"The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers"

Well now. This is one idea that the US can use to solve that whole "eminent domain to benefit businesses" problem.

Contrary to Common Assumptions? (5, Funny)

MooseByte (751829) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170116)


"Experiments have shown the DNA strands have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction. It is remarkable that such a phenomenon has occurred contrary to common assumptions about nuclear waste."

Ummm... the animals are radioactive and their DNA has undergone considerable mutation. What exactly is contrary here to the common assumptions of radiological contamination? Sure matches my own assumptions.

Sure they can reproduce but I wouldn't exactly be jumping with glee over this "recovery". The damage merely has yet to express itself.

Though if any of the local turtles grow to human size and start dressing like ninjas, I'll take back everything I said.

Re:Contrary to Common Assumptions? (3, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170326)

Sure they can reproduce but I wouldn't exactly be jumping with glee over this "recovery". The damage merely has yet to express itself.

So what you're saying is, regardless of the lack of evidence for harmful mutation that should be evident, there MUST be harm becase you KNOW that radiation causes it?

Way to be scientific about this.

Radioactive Bears? (4, Funny)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170120)

A former Soviet Republic has developed Radioactive Bears?

Someone get Stephen Colbert on the phone right away! The world must be warned!

Re:Radioactive Bears? (1)

TheDreadSlashdotterD (966361) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170232)

Yeah, let's set up an interview and watch the Colbert fly!

Just goes to show (2, Insightful)

aztec rain god (827341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170122)

that human presence is more hazardous to wildlife than radiation.

Time for 3-eyed bears? (2, Funny)

gearmonger (672422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170123)

Life imitates art yet again.

Oh, wait.

Short-term evolution in action? (1)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170133)

I wonder how much of a factor evolution might be in the resistance of these animals (in addition to the overall decrease in radioactivity after the accident). For example, the article mentions that the first generation or two after the accident tended to have deformities, but current generations don't. Perhaps only the animals which were resistant to deformities were able to reproduce and pass on their radiation-resistant genes to the next generation?

One could test this by seeing if "control" animals from outside the Chernobyl area experience any problems in the area. If there are indeed strains with genetic resistance to radiation, it could be interesting to study, and could be useful knowledge for more futuristic things like genetically modifying radiation-resistant organisms for off-world food sources and terraforming.

Radio Acive Pollin (2, Interesting)

Photar (5491) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170140)

Could radio active pollin spread and cause problems?

Re:Radio Acive Pollin (1)

nra1871 (836627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170187)

Could radio active pollin spread and cause problems?
I read that as radioactive Putin....

Re:Radio Acive Pollin (1)

Chr0nik (928538) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170293)

Man, that would play hell with my allergies. I guess I'm not vacationing there any time soon.

Not that surprising (4, Informative)

onco_p53 (231322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170141)

I am not that surprised really, that is what natural selection is about. The DNA coding for many genes also has quite a bit of redundancy built in, naturally with large radiation doses critical genes may be damaged, but given enough time favourable mutants will arise.

It reminds me of the large scale experiments done on plant breeding [1] where radioactive material was placed in the centre of a field of crops, and favourable mutants were selected. I love telling this story to anti-GE people, who probably eat plant products produced as a result of these experiments done predominantly in the 1970's. At least with GE only a single well studied change is being made.

[1] http://www.nias.affrc.go.jp/eng/gfs/index.html [affrc.go.jp]

Any iguanas? (2, Funny)

DirePickle (796986) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170145)

These animals are radioactive but otherwise healthy. A large number of animals died initially due to problems like destroyed thyroid glands but their offspring seem to be physically healthy. Experiments have shown the DNA strands have undergone considerable mutation but such mutations have not impacted crucial functions like reproduction.
I think I've seen this movie.

If you want a bit more depth (4, Informative)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170147)

This story was covered in this months (last months now? the next issue is due soon) National Geographic. Definately one of the better featured pieces of the last few months

LOL at developers/farmers (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170149)

The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers

Since these people could care less about destroying the worlds oxygen generators or polluting huge rivers with mercury and waste what makes one think they would care about selling people radioactive wood or even building on radio active land.

Give your head a shake.

That's great. (0, Flamebait)

RoffleTheWaffle (916980) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170151)

Well, at least all the plants and animals in Iran will be okay once we're done with it. Cue references to 'Nausicaa and the Valley of the Wind'...

Not a bear (2, Funny)

Bibz (849958) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170174)

there are tantalizing reports of bear footprints
Actually it's not a bear, it's a really huge cat looking for a place to lay his 10,000 eggs.

rain forests have people too... (2, Insightful)

wherrera (235520) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170198)

Most rain forest is inhabited. The article makes the usual stupid urban-centric assumptions about where the people we care about live. Maybe someone should suggest the waste needs to be buried in parks in the author's neighborhood (not really).

I still think the Sun is the best pace to dispose of the longer half-life (>100 yrs as very very unsafe) stuff.

Not too surprising (1, Redundant)

bagsc (254194) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170200)

as small does of radiation are much less lethal than small doses of humanity...

if they knew better (1)

bitlooter (949192) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170204)

they wouldn't be there, but can you expect from a bird brain!

Well obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170211)

Obviously this means it is safe to put more pollution in drinking water and dump waste in the ocean.

Watch out Japan! (1)

st1d (218383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170212)

Next thing you know, those mutated animals will be major producers of electronic equipment. As ADC asked, "What was in those bombs, fscking fertilizer?!"

This girl has been talking about this for years. (0, Redundant)

tpsboston (969767) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170213)

This gal's website has always fascinated me. She takes motorcycle trips right up to the Chernobyl reactor. She has been talking about the abundance of wildlife and vegetation need the reactor for years now. I completely forgot that Chernobyl actually operated as a functioning reactor for years and years after the meltdown of one of their units in '86. How would you like to have that job in the post-meltdown world? Forget the 30 foot bears...how about the 30 foot tumors spouting from the sides of your head. Here is her link: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm [kiddofspeed.com]

A More Sinister Story (1)

Doytch (950946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170215)

Underneath the paws of the happy bears lies a secret base where slightly mutated men from Canada have their bones replaced with adamantium.

Anti-human (2, Interesting)

duncan bayne (544299) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170224)

> The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of
> nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy
> developers and farmers

Well, that's not significantly more anti-human than passing laws preventing development of natural resources, is it? It's just more honest.

Controversial? (2, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170225)

The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy developers and farmers

I'd say less controversial and more hysterical. Of course, were I one of the animals being exposed to that "developer repellent" I'd might feel a bit differently.

Larry Niven [geocities.com] had some similar ideas, once upon a time.

long-term effect (4, Insightful)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170231)

Well, a lot of animals have life cycles under a year. Even bears don't often live past 20, right? And they become sexually mature and reproduce within a few years. The radiation wouldn't interrupt the life of short-lived animals.

So, not everyone living in an irradiated area will have their flesh falling off, but for us long-lifed humans, the life would be filled with more misery and an early ending. Maybe cancer at 20. And for normal human socities, "old farts" (those over 30) are really what drive the society.

Hunting Season (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170248)

I can't wait for hunting season, shouldn't be to difficult to spot a glowing bear!

Just goes to show (1)

MushMouth (5650) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170271)

That human populations are more destructive to the enviroment than nuclear waste which keeps the people away.

Why all the surprise at these results? (1)

slashname3 (739398) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170274)

I seem to recall this has been predicted many many times in lots of different movies from the 50's. And they normally started out like this. A few sightings of unexpected animals in areas that are radioactive, then a farmer and his cows go missing followed by a few teenagers having a party late at night at the beach. This is normally followed by the local mayor ignoring the surviving teenagers and insisting on holding the founders day picnic regardless of the fantastic stories of 30 foot tall wild boars. It all ends badly for the idiot mayor but the good looking teenagers manage to survive while the cruel ones and the ones having casual sex get killed in various gruesome ways by the 30 foot tall wild boars.

hy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15170278)

COMMON PROBLEMS OF SEX WITH CHILDREN -- A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE G.N.A.A.
A practical problem of sex with children is physical. It is very important to understand that adults are much bigger than kids. Obviously commmon sense must be used. The size differences CAN be dealt with and sex can be accomplished without harming a child physically. This mostly applies to sex with very young girls. It is probably not advisable for adult male pedophiles to even attempt vaginal penetration with a girl until at least age 9. A girl much below that age is not able in many cases able to handle an adult penis (especially if one has a large penis) being inserted in her vagina. She is often simply too small to take it all the way in easily without pain. The girl may not enjoy full-insertion intercourse no matter how gentle, as she simply is too small & cannot handle the sensation of the penis being fully inserted and withdrawn repeatedly as an adult female can easily allow. Your erect penis may also look HUGE to her, causing apprehension. She may also have an intact hymen, & dealing with this is tricky. You should proceed with intercourse VERY carefully or not at all since you can hurt her quite easily even if you are extra gentle-she is NOT a woman-remember that! In any case, if she becomes familiar with the concept of intercourse, she may ask you to do it. I advise you to not give into her pleading or if so use judgement and proceed VERY carefully and GENTLY. You may have to settle for partial insertion to satisfy her wishes without actually having real intercourse. This way is a safer compromise and with it she can see what it is like sort of without injuring her. If you must break her hymen, do it carefully, but firmly-do not prolong her sexual suffering needlessly. When inserting the penis, (especially her first time being penetrated) do so very slowly & gently & listen to her carefully. Ask her if it is painful, & if she would like you to stop & remove it. If she says to, obey her. You want to make intercourse pleasing not painful, & listening to her is the key. Do not fret, intercourse may still work if you are gentle enough and you do not push her. She may be able to accept penetration with sufficient practice, but that will never happen if you are too rough on her. At the very least, you may be able get her to permit partial insertion and go from there, it just takes time and patience and listening to her feedback. If you cannot have complete intercourse or even partial penetration, do not try and force it-accept it and allow her & teach her to satisfy you in other ways which will not hurt her. The last thing you want to do is harm her, so you may have to accept oral sex (whether she swallows semen or not is something you have to work out with her-do not make her do anything she feels uncomfortable with. In any case, she will probably be fascinated by ejaculate, since it is so alien & new to her even if she understands the biology. Fear of swallowing semen is a woman thing, a learned prejudice that females pick along the way to associating sex with dirtyness and from talk to girlfriends who refuse to do this and give women ideas. Many times they have not even TRIED it before condemning! Hopefully, you can catch her before her friends terrorize her and convert her to these prejudices without at least TRYING it...) or mutual masturbation. She can stimulate you by hand or mouth & you can do the same for her. Female pedophiles who are sexually active with boys have it much easier-you cannot hurt him by letting him insert his erect penis inside your adult vagina. It may be a little loose, but he will not be harmed by it, & you may enjoy it. He should be able to climax by vaginal stimulation if you do it to him right, but it may take work. Anal sex with either sex is likewise risky & should be done carefully with older children or not at all. The most important thing is to listen to the child & not do ANYTHING they do not wish to do. You must not hurt them! If they ask you to stop, it is for a reason! You are probably hurting them or they do not like it. Your child must enjoy it or else you should not do it! You can encourage them, but NEVER make them! Be careful of putting weight on a child-remember, you CAN hurt them very easily & unintentionally if you are not extremely careful. Most pedos are pretty good about this, but it can't be overstated.

Green peace feels differently (1)

tddoog (900095) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170300)

This article seems to take a different viewpoint than the recent greenpeace report. [greenpeace.org]

long-term effect (5, Interesting)

gansch (939712) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170310)

I took classes from a professor studying worms and spiders in the Chernobyl area, and he found remarkable genetic mutations (e.g., changes in the number and size of chromosomes, large sections of additional DNA, etc.) and behavioral changes (e.g., worms switching to from asexual to sexual reproduction).

Since these organisms have such short lifespans, there have been ample generations since the nuclear accident for the organisms to go locally extinct or mutate into different species. But, that has not been the case. These local populations have continued to survive without deleterious effects on the population level.

Populations of organisms with longer lifespans may take longer to recover to pre-blast levels (although from the sound of the article and my previous knowledge the opposite has occurred) and may experience a genetic bottleneck effect (which may be countered by mutations), but genomes are resiliant and it is unlikely that the populations would never recover.

Remember that glowing pig story... (5, Funny)

Winlin (42941) | more than 8 years ago | (#15170315)

from a few weeks ago. They didn't breed those in Europe; they just caught a few Chernobyl ones. They would have got a bear too, but those things move amazingly fast on all eights.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>