TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly (2014)

241 点作者 foxtacles将近 2 年前

20 条评论

jonplackett将近 2 年前
Weirdly, there was actually a period of history where this was normal.<p>During the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago trees just fell over and lay there because nothing had evolved to decay them yet.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Carboniferous" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Carboniferous</a>
评论 #36203749 未加载
评论 #36204614 未加载
评论 #36213522 未加载
评论 #36203784 未加载
godelski将近 2 年前
&gt; including some [wild boar] bagged as far away as Germany—continue to show abnormal and dangerous levels of radiation.<p>This really needs to stop. I remember doing the calculation a few years back due to another HN post (and the German obsession around boar) and you&#x27;d need to eat roughly 0.55lbs (0.25kg) of the most radioactive boar you could find every day or 3lbs (1.4kg) of the median. That is to just hit EU radiation limits, not to hit a level where you&#x27;re at risk. This also doesn&#x27;t include that you&#x27;ll heal over that period. The problem here is that if you&#x27;re eating this much pork every day you&#x27;re going to be at far higher health risks for heart disease than radiation sickness. Recommended is not more than 50g&#x2F;day or 0.05kg&#x2F;0.11lbs. For reference, Germans eat about 55kg of meat a year, so you&#x27;d be eating 220x the average German if you had a craving for the most radioactive boar and ate it exclusively. Germans used to eat more meat, and especially pork, and these stories have just done wild damage to the population. Especially because farm pigs aren&#x27;t affected. But a side benefit is that less Germans are dying of heart disease, so I guess that&#x27;s nice.<p>As for the forest, you may notice if you google it you&#x27;ll see this story limited to 2014 and maybe a BBC article from 2019 as a result of the HBO series. [0] You may be interested to know that wildlife flourishes in Chernobyl and this is almost an accidental nature preserve. Life is shorter, yes, but life is flourishing and wildlife populations are far higher now than they were prior to the disaster. Population levels are similar to uncontaminated regions. It is really a fascinating area to understand from a biological perspective (same with Fukushima, which has similar results). When you dig into these they really challenge your preconceived notions of radiation damage. There is danger, don&#x27;t get me wrong, and I don&#x27;t think people should go inhabit these places just yet. But neither are these places dying. They&#x27;re more like the post-apocalyptic movie scenes where animals and plants take over. There&#x27;s far more nuance and interesting things happening in these regions and I wish we&#x27;d discuss these from a more holistic perspective.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.com&#x2F;future&#x2F;article&#x2F;20190701-why-plants-survived-chernobyls-deadly-radiation" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.com&#x2F;future&#x2F;article&#x2F;20190701-why-plants-survi...</a>
评论 #36204910 未加载
评论 #36209472 未加载
评论 #36208159 未加载
评论 #36209881 未加载
评论 #36207198 未加载
评论 #36205180 未加载
garganzol将近 2 年前
Radiation has a notable sterilizing effect - this is why the speed of a natural decomposition is diminished. Fewer microbes leads to a slower decomposition.
评论 #36201873 未加载
评论 #36201426 未加载
评论 #36201383 未加载
Ekaros将近 2 年前
Now could this be solution for large scale carbon capture? Seed massive amounts of forested areas with radioactive material? So we could prevent large mass of bio material from decomposing and thus releasing carbondioxide?
评论 #36202374 未加载
评论 #36202836 未加载
评论 #36203030 未加载
评论 #36204583 未加载
评论 #36203721 未加载
jmkni将近 2 年前
Fascinating but needs a &#x27;2014&#x27; marker, I wonder what the situation is nearly another decade on?
评论 #36201891 未加载
dang将近 2 年前
Discussed at the time (of the article):<p><i>Forests Around Chernobyl Aren’t Decaying Properly</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=7404345" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=7404345</a> - March 2014 (121 comments)
pvaldes将近 2 年前
If this shows something crystal clear is that if the litter is let alone it doesn&#x27;t burn necessarily. Just accumulates and made deep soil. The only wildfires in Chernobyl since 2014 were those provoked by soldiers. No men messing around + no cattle or farmers = no big wildfires.<p>Of course we want this litter to remain just where it is as many decades as we can, but under each rock there is always an idiot, so the healing process is never guaranteed.
评论 #36201464 未加载
评论 #36202323 未加载
评论 #36201206 未加载
评论 #36203113 未加载
评论 #36201324 未加载
photochemsyn将近 2 年前
The Red Forest is highly contaminated, such that surface level microroentgens per hour are at least 10X than what&#x27;s considered maximum safe level for humans, and likely a good deal higher in the soil.<p>There are other tests that could have been done, such as measuring the ability of soil suspensions taken from the Red Forest to breakdown cellulose in a test tube (studies that would probably require a lot of care in a radiation-safe lab), but the kind of study described in the article (leaving bags of leaves around to see what happens to them) seems to be enough to prove the point; fungal&#x2F;insect breakdown of plant matter is inhibited in the most severely contaminated areas of the exclusion zone.<p>Looking around, here&#x27;s a study on the contamination of fish in surrounding lakes (still an issue). Some fish are more genetically sensitive to it than others, but you probably wouldn&#x27;t want to eat any of them:<p>&quot;Impact of Environmental Radiation on the Health and Reproductive Status of Fish from Chernobyl&quot; (2018)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubs.acs.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1021&#x2F;acs.est.8b02378" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubs.acs.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1021&#x2F;acs.est.8b02378</a>
评论 #36205219 未加载
karaterobot将近 2 年前
I keep looking at the word &quot;properly&quot; and thinking that is implying some negative judgment. I&#x27;m all for using radiation to preserve food from decay — as we do already, and should do more of. But I suppose it may be considered proper to preserve food meant for storage, transfer, and human consumption, while considering leaves in the woods not decaying to be improper.
Sophistifunk将近 2 年前
Pripyat seems like an excellent place to look for genes and organisms that will help us grow food (and recycle air) on the moon &#x2F; mars.
pkphilip将近 2 年前
So you are telling me that I may be able to slow down aging if I receive a huge dose of radiation from time to time? &#x2F;Just-kidding
toss1将近 2 年前
Unfortunately, Russia is sub-threatening to make an even better &quot;test example&quot; using the the Ukranian Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant which they currently occupy, saying &quot;no threat for now&quot; [0].<p>They just blew a major dam in Kakhovka, Ukraine, with tens of thousands being evacuated.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;europe&#x2F;russia-says-no-threat-for-now-ukraines-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-after-dam-2023-06-06&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;europe&#x2F;russia-says-no-threat-f...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dw.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;live-updates-ukraine-accuses-russia-of-blowing-up-kakhovka-dam&#x2F;a-65833125" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dw.com&#x2F;en&#x2F;live-updates-ukraine-accuses-russia-of...</a>
DoreenMichele将近 2 年前
I think it would be reasonable to assume the accident killed a lot of stuff at the time and one factor is it&#x27;s not being reintroduced in part because it is a zone of exclusion.<p>They should experiment with bringing in decay promoters to try to prevent a devastating fire from making things worse. (Assuming they haven&#x27;t done so already, which may be wrong given the age of the article.)
User23将近 2 年前
Does this mean that a full blown nuclear reset could create conditions that would allow coal to form again?
thepostman0将近 2 年前
My house is full of woodworm and Chernobyl is welcome to take the timbers.
tomohawk将近 2 年前
The Russian takeover of the zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant has pushed it to the edge of another catastrophe.
评论 #36204985 未加载
评论 #36206377 未加载
londons_explore将近 2 年前
Presumably the exclusion zone shrinks a bit each year as previously unsafe areas become safe to live again?
评论 #36204076 未加载
ftxbro将近 2 年前
&gt; &quot;Forests around Chernobyl aren’t decaying properly&quot;<p>i hope they can decay so their spirits can finally be laid to rest. the last thing ukraine needs right now is to be flanked by some restless undead radioactive ents
评论 #36204006 未加载
wkat4242将近 2 年前
And still people going on saying Chernobyl only caused a handful of human deaths.. That&#x27;s not the only problem with nuclear disasters.
FredPret将近 2 年前
...oh boy