|
|
| Fig. 1: The spread of radiation following the Chernobyl disaster. [6-8] (Source: Wikimedia Commons) |
On April 25-26, 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Pripyat, Ukraine leaked radioactive fallout after one of the nuclear reactors exploded. This event is one of the most catastrophic nuclear disasters in history. After the explosion, nearly 400,000 people had to evacuate the area surrounding the plant in order to prevent radioactive contamination. Radioactive fallout expanded to Belarus and even parts of western Russia (see Fig. 1). Following the evacuation, the wildlife around Chernobyl was left with no humans and immense radiation exposure. The disaster caused humans and animals to be exposed to Cs-137. The half-life of Cs-137 is 30.17 years, so the effects of the Chernobyl disaster are still present to this day. [1] Its impact on the local wildlife is something that is being studied constantly by scientists and biologists all over the world.
Exposure to radiation is potentially dangerous for any living organism. The Chernobyl disaster led to radioactive fallout that is still present in this area today. One of the main adverse effects of radiation exposure is germline mutation, which is mutation occurring in germ cells. [2] While germline mutation is an issue, the Chernobyl disaster may have not had a severe impact on it. There is much controversy on the change in mutation rates in the area, but studies have shown that rates of these mutations in humans and voles living close to Chernobyl were higher than expected. [3] Radiation exposure around Chernobyl has been proven to be dangerous to wildlife. These birds have even been shown to have an increased mortality rate due to the radiation. Recent findings have shown a link between radioactive contamination and and increase in adult Hirundo rustica mortality rates. [4]
While it would seem right to assume that the lasting effects of radiation would prevent plants and animals from growing inside the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ), the thriving local wildlife shows that radiation is not nearly as impactful as one would think. Animal species native to Ukraine are abundant, and the diverse populations of plants and animals support the idea that a nuclear disaster may not harm free-living organisms in the long run. The resiliency of some mammals around Chernobyl after exposure to radiation is something to take note of. Compared to other non-contaminated Belarus forests/parks, the population of land mammals is normal in Chernobyl. In fact, population densities of Elk, Red deer, Roe deer and Wild boar in Chernobyl are similar to the densities found in Berezinsky, Braslav, Belovezha and Narochansky. [5] Even though there are adverse effects from radiation, it seems that wildlife flourishes under even the most extreme circumstances.
© Jordan Greenberg. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] F. Marino and L. Nunziata, "Long-Term Consequences of the Chernobyl Radioactive Fallout: An Exploration of the Aggregate Data," Milbank Q. 96, 814 (2018).
[2] O. Urban, "Health Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident," Physics 241, Stanford University, Winter 2016.
[3] H. Ellegren et al., "Fitness Loss and Germline Mutations in Barn Swallows Breeding in Chernobyl," Nature 389, 593 (1997).
[4] A. P. Møller et al., "Elevated Mortality Among Birds in Chernobyl as Judged from Skewed Age and Sex Ratios," PLoS ONE 7, e35223 (2012).
[5] Deryabina et al., "Long-Term Census Data Reveal Abundant Wildlife Populations at Chernobyl," Curr. Biol. 25, R824 (2015).
[6] "Handbook of International Economic Statistics," U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, (1996), p. 177.
[7] UNSCEAR, Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Vol II, Annex J (United Nations Publications, 2000).
[8] D. Christensen, "How Much Worse Is Chernobyl Than Background Radiation?" Physics 241, Stanford University, Winter 2014.
