Remember the young lady and her photo journey through Chernobyl?

[trumad]

Well... I built new page for her. Actaully I took the liberty to help her out and get her off of Angelfire.

Enjoy:
http://www.convergcom.com/chern.htm

[ComerPerro]

1. Wow

Nice work. That was a very cool thing to do!

[treepig]

2. too bad she missed out on photographing the wildlife

that is making a remarkable recovery in the contaminated (and therefore people-free) zone:

Chernobyl has defied the gloomiest of prophesies by becoming one of Europe's richest wildlife habitats, teeming with endangered species. The evacuation of tens of the 30km exclusion zone has resulted in a flourishing community of plants and animals whose diversity has stunned biologists.

http://mailman.mcmaster.ca/mailman/private/cdn-nucl-l/0006.gz/msg00015.html


The site of the world's worst nuclear accident has become one of Europe's prime wildlife habitats, according to a report in the London Independent. In 1986, the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl in the Ukraine exploded and burned, releasing clouds of radioactive gases and particles that spread across Europe, contaminating soil, water, and farms as far away as Norway. Contaminated livestock and crops had to be destroyed, and 135,000 people were evacuated from the most intensely contaminated areas near the plant. Now, just 14 years later, wildlife ecologists have found some of Europe's most endangered species living in the Chernobyl area, including cranes, eagles, wild boar, roe deer, wolves, badgers, otters, and lynx. The scientists have found little evidence of disease or reproductive failure in the animals observed.


http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_map/articles/article_75.mhtml

Mention of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster usually brings thoughts of death, destruction, cancer, massive economic loss, and other negative images. Clearly, the economic impacs have been devastating for the Ukrainian economy, and the harmful effects such as elevated cancer rates in humans <1-3> and the killing of the pine trees in the Red Forest are real <4,5>. However, the sum effect for the flora and fauna in the highly radioactive, restricted zone has been overwhelmingly positive in favor of biodiversity and abundance of individuals <6>. Our 12 expeditions to the most radioactive areas of these zones reveal that animal life is abundant. Parts of the 10-km zone exclusion zone around Reactor 4 are strikingly, yet deceptively, beautiful (Fig.1). Only the clicks and whistles of our electronic equipment indicated that the habitat was contaminated with radioactivity.

During recent visits to Chernobyl, we experienced numerous sightings of moose (Alces alces), roe deer (Capreol capreolus), Russian wild boar (Sus scrofa), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), river otter (Lutra canadensis), and rabbits (Lepus europaeus) within the 10-km exclusion zone. We observed none of those taxa except for a single rabbit outside the 30-km zone, although the time and extent of search in each region is comparable. The top carnivores, wolves and eagles, as well as the endangered black stork are more abundant in the 30-km zone than outside the area. Trapping of small rodents in the most radioactive area within the 10-km zone has yielded greater success rates than in uncontaminated areas <7>. Diversity of flowers and other plants in the highly radioactive regions is impressive and equals that observed in protected habitats outside the zone.

In reality, radioactivity at the level associated with the Chornobyl meltdown does have discernible, negative impacts on plant and animal life <4,5>. However, the benefit of excluding humans from this highly contaminated ecosystem appears to outweigh significantly any negative cost associated with Chornobyl radiation <8>.

http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chernobyl/wildlifepreserve.htm

[donsu]

4. american scientist studying mice at Chernobyl were startled to

find out that the mice still look and act like mice but have completely changed down to the last chromosome. They don't yet know what that means. Totally and completely changed.

they had studied the mice before the accident happened. They were not expecting this.

[treepig]

7. do you happen to have any links?

my literature searches have not turned up any such findings (but perhaps i'm not using the correct keywords).

thanks!!

[donsu]

43. no - I've tried to find the article myself

but I'm terrible at searching.

It might have been in a Russian newspaper

or it might have been at www.scitechdaily.com

or someplace else.......

I've never been able to get the article out of my mind. It was two american scientists who had studied these mice by Chernobyl before the accident. and then several yrs. ago they got the chance to go back. they could only stay a short time (2 wks.?) because of the danger. Apparently scientiest the world over want to study stuff there but it takes forever to get permission, etc. etc.

They discover that every aspect including DNA was changed in some way. They were next to speechless.

I thought this so astounding that it would get world attention but it seems I'm the only one who read it.

[treepig]

44. "but it takes forever to get permission, etc"

yeah, that sucks! i have a couple of colleagues who tried for over two years (in the mid-90's) to get permission to go the chernobyl to study the effects of radiation on bacteria. never got it - apparently they didn't have the right connections or the willingness to offer "financial incentives" to the appropriate officials in charge of the paperwork. anyhow (and i realize i've well overstayed my welcome in this thread) their experience makes the ability of the young women in this thread, who could apparently just wander into the contaminated zone at the drop of a hat to take pictures, a tad suspicious (cue sinister music . . . . was she allowed in specifically to produce a piece of propaganda?).

in any event, rapid (but not quite this rapid) genetic change in mice has a precedent in the usa:

Mouse Study Suggests Mammoth Evolutionary Change
A study of a common wild mouse by two University of Illinois at Chicago biologists has found evidence of dramatic evolutionary change in a span of just 150 years, suggesting genetic evolution can occur a lot faster than many had thought possible. The findings are the first report of such quick evolution in a mammal and appear in the May 22 issue of the journal Nature.

Oliver Pergams, a conservation biology researcher with the Chicago Zoological Society in Brookfield, Ill. and visiting research assistant professor at UIC, conducted the research as his Ph.D. thesis project at UIC with Dennis Nyberg, associate professor of biology.

Pergams' study began as a comparison of the genetics of two mice common to the Chicago region -- the white-footed mouse and the prairie deer mouse. But the search for historical samples quickly showed the white-footed mouse had squeezed out the prairie deer mouse from its dominant position, diminishing the samples needed to do a comparative study, so Pergams and Nyberg focused attention on the white-footed mouse.

"This intensified focus resulted in our discovery of rapid evolution," said Pergams. "It was a great surprise. We were simply trying to quantify the amount of genetic variation over time, not show evolution."

this research may have broad implications.

"It suggests that humans are a likely cause of such rapid evolution," Pergams said, "and that much of current phylogenetic and phylogeographic methodology may be flawed because it does not take the possibility of rapid mitochondrial DNA evolution into account."

"It also suggests that the 'molecular clock' may sometimes, and sporadically, tick blindingly fast."




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030527085210.htm

[donsu]

46. interesting, looks like the nuke accident speeded up evolution

but wouldn't those scientist be desperate to study those mice? their frustration must be huge.

gosh, I can think of a million questions about all of this......

[hunter]

18. People are more dangerous than nuclear waste....

But we knew that already, didn't we?

To protect the environment is to protect ourselves. If we humans become extinct by destroying the ecosystems that support us, nature will eventually recover, and in a hundred thousand years all our crap will be little more than an interesting layer in the fossil record -- perhaps a cautionary tale to be read by the next intelligent species that comes along.

[amazona]

32. I've heard the same about the hanford area

A couple of my relatives, one of whom speaks Russian, went to this area (Ukraine not Hanford!) a few years back but they didn't say much and I'm not sure why they went or what-all they did. I didn't realize that it was so totally evacuated -- gotta admit, I assumed if tourists were bopping by that it couldn't be too bad. I am interested in viewing the cranes now that I am getting past reproductive age and being exposed to radiation is of less importance.

[donsu]

3. thank you

nt

[Stephanie]

5. Thanks to both of you.

That's an amazing page. I'm glad I saw it, and sorry too.

[trumad]

6. Thanks Steph

This is important in so many ways... Folks get way to complacent with regards anything Nuclear.... It could happen to us if we let our guard down.

[treepig]

8. actually, it a chernobyl-style accident could NOT happen to us

and such hyperbole tends to discredit the anti-nuclear position, see

Chernobyl: A Chernobyl-style event could not happen in the United States, Western Europe, or Japan. People who protest Nuclear Power because of the Chernobyl tragedy are misinformed. The design of the Chernobyl plant was a dangerous older design that the Western World abandoned decades ago, for precisely the reasons that Chernobyl failed. See the Nuclear Q&A for more info.

http://users.frii.com/davejen/nuclear/nuclear.htm


In the Western World, today's reactors cannot fail in the same way - the worst we can do is a Three-Mile-Island type of event. There is some evidence that TMI has increased cancer rates in its vincinity - but of course, these numbers pale in comparison to the 20,000 deaths/year that coal provides. Again, the point is not that Nuclear Power is perfectly safe - it's not, nothing is. The point is that it is far safer than Coal. Even if a Chernobyl event could happen in the U.S. (and it can't), we'd "need" several per year in order for nuclear and coal to be even!

[trumad]

9. I never said that..

But if you don't think that a missle can't take out a Nuke Power plant well then? And remember..there was specualtion that the plane that crashed in PA on 9/11 was heading to 3-mile Island....

[treepig]

10. ok, i apparently misunderstood "It could happen to us"

you start a thread about chernobyl and then mention "It could happen to us" - could you please explain what you meant for a chronically obtuse person such as myself?

also, the fear-mongering (if you don't think that a missle can't take out a Nuke Power plant well then? And remember..there was specualtion that the plane that crashed in PA on 9/11 was heading to 3-mile Island....) is a bit off-setting - but since it's all the rage in this country today, suppose i should be indulgent.

in any event, terrorist attacks could be fairly easily negated:

Kyd recommends "that it would be prudent to consider installing anti-aircraft positions around plants, particularly those in urban areas, as has already been done in the Czech Republic." Others, undoubtedly, would favor jet fighters patrolling America's 103 nuclear reactors.

A far less intrusive and expensive measure — and one far more effective — would involve the erection of steel poles about 100 feet apart laced with steel cable approximately 300 feet from and surrounding the reactor building. Any cruise missile, warplane, or airliner would be shredded, its fuel ignited, and any explosive on board either detonated early or dispersed.


http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/nuclear-plants.cfm

[trumad]

12. Well that's fine and Dandy

So have these measures been taken yet? NO! Is it fear mongering to ask why not?

So let's say that the folks on the PA plane didn't "Let's Roll" and the hijackers did fly to 3-mile Island and crash the plane into the reactor. Can you tell me what would have happened? Would fall-out occur? Would it have been a disaster? Would there be Chernobyl like contamination? If not, why not...

Fear Monger my ass...

[treepig]

13. of course it's fear mongering

if a terrorist gains control of a missile that could take out TMI - sure that's a concern. there would likely be hundreds of deaths (a fairly small number, btw, compared to the close to 30,000 each year in the usa due to fossil fuel combustion - further, coal combustion releases a HUGE amount of radioactivity into the environment).

but with the same missile, there are plenty of more deadly scenarios.

for example, the missile would kill far more people if were to take out any of the stadiums packed hundreds of times each year for NFL games or any of the stadia filled thousands of times each year for NBA or NHL games. a missile attack even on a sparsely filled baseball stadium would likely be more deadly than an attack on a commercial nuclear power plant.

i don't particularly like professional sports, but i doubt if i were to launch an anti-sports crusade based on the scenarios presented int the above paragraph i'd get very far (and rightly so). therefore, for the life of me i cannot understand how incredibly unlikely scenarios such as those you pose can be used with such effectiveness to cause so much environmental damage.

but in any event, the anti-nuclear fear-mongering sells well so good luck with that, and good job buying into the "let's roll" propaganda as well :thumbsup:

[trumad]

14. Actually I think the plane was shot down...

but you still havent answered my question....If the plane got through and hit 3-mile Island, whould it be a huge Environmental disaster or not... Would there be Nuclear fallout and would the fall out sites be uninhabitable? Yes or no? It sure seems to me that you think that Nuclear Fallout ain't as bad as everybody says it is. Oh never mind..

I'm going to start a thread asking about this scenario and find out what my fellow DU'ers think about it.

[treepig]

15. i did answer the question

i said there'd be hundreds of deaths, a number which is based on chernobyl-scale "worst case scenario"

and you completely ignore what is happening right now - the combustion of coal release way more radioctive waste into the environment than even chernobyl (let alone the nuclear power plants in the first world nations).

but yeah, go ahead and see what your fellow DU'ers think about it (of course they're mostly going to agree with you because they've been brainwashed to do so, all the while while the status quo goes on killing and killing and killing, but we wouldn't want to upset your idealogical purity, now would we?)

[trumad]

16. Look dude

This thread started with a heartfelt appreciation for a young lady who took pictures and commented on the tragedy of Chernobyl... What's your angle here? I don't get it....

[treepig]

17. if you had added a disclaimer

such as:

__________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: This thread is intended as a heartfelt tribute
to a young lady who took pictures and commented on the
tragedy of Chernobyl. It is in no way intended to reflect
reality in any way and it would be appreciated if those who
wish to provide more balanced and scientifically-supported
viewpoint would kindly save their comments for other threads.
____________________________________________________________



if i had seen such a comment, i would have butted out (or would not have butted in in the first place). however, i assumed that this was the usual thype of thread where someone offers their opinions and/or propaganda, and others are free to rebut the said opinions and/or propaganda. more specifically, when it is posted that chernobyl caused 40,000-120,000 deaths, when the real number is in the hundreds, that seems like a huge discrepancy that should be pointed out. further, this young women just liked to go take pictures, and mentioned that she particularly enjoyed the seclusion of the de-populated zone - and then didn't make any mention of the flourishing wild-life, including many endangered species. my only conclusion could be that this was not, as you posit, just "a young lady who liked to take pictures" but was rather a blatant piece of propaganda.

some links to the number of fatalities at chernobyl:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/chernounscear.htm
http://www.nrpb.org/publications/bulletin/archive/bulletin_223/rpb223-1.htm
http://www.arps.org.au/Chernobyl.htm

[Stephanie]

21. Speaking of propaganda

Do you work in, or for, the nuclear power industry?

[treepig]

24. if you point out what i'm wrong about

by using actual science (as compared to google-derived political advocacy sites that masquerade as "scientific"), i'll cheerfully and gratefully retract anything i posted that is in error. a good place to start is the free search engine of peer-reviewed literature provided by the NIH:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

anyhow, after i post links to the results of a comprehensive United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation - the implication is that i'm providing propaganda for the nuclear power industry? whatever . . .

[Stephanie]

27. I never said you were wrong. I don't know if you are.

But you didn't answer the question.

[treepig]

36. here's a picture of me at work, you be the judge . . .

but really, the point is that the information should be evaluated on its own - but i accept as a valid point, which i believe was being raised in post #25, that the links i provided may seem biased because they where from the "Atomic Nuclear Agency" - in reality the information was presented by the united nations study, a direct link to the study can be found in post #26. also, go to the primary peer-reviewed studies and look at the scientific debate yourself (as compared to the "cherry-picking" of favorable results to one side or another.

[trumad]

25. real number is in the hundreds,?

Please... Just an easy google will tell you that any number is speculative... Here's five links to prove that point..
http://www.ecn.cz/private/c10/costs.html

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/hazmat/articles/chernobyl1.html

http://www.ccsa.asn.au/nic/NucHazards/Chernobyl.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/25/ukraine.chernobyl/

http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/news/29402.html


Now I know you'll come back with some links from the Atomic Nuclear Agency saying it wasn't that bad, but I don't trust them and their motives....

As far as claiming that Elena's photo-documentary is a piece of propaganda, are you only basing that on her estimation of the dead? Because..everything else she wrote about looks pretty accurate to me.

So she says 40 thou and up and you say in the hundreds... You sound like the Media when they're reporting the amount of protesters... Could be thousands but to make it look better for their cause they say hundreds.....

You know were only talking about deaths here... Were not talking about the thousands of Humans who can no longer live in their City... But hey, as long as a hibiscus and a pig can live there that's OK with you. :eyes:

[treepig]

26. exactly, "an easy google" search . . .

basically, you can easily get complete shit from a google search. for example, you post sites sponsored by greenpeace - of course they're going to play up the fatalities, as is the ukraniun government - they're desperate for money and want to look as pathetic as possible in hopes of attracting some type of aid.

like i posted below, if you can show me that fatalities beyond the "hundreds" i reference - when based on the consensus of peer-reviewed scientific literature, not political advocacy or popular media reports, i'll be happy to recant my fatality estimates. once again, you can find the primary literature at:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

(i'll avoid posting anything more, since i myself am such a biased propagandist and therefore completely untrustworthy)


anyhow, i previously posted links to the United Nations report on chernobyl, if you believe the "Atomic Nuclear Agency" unfairly exerpted portions, feel free to peruse the entire document yourself:

Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes, Volume 2: Effects
ISBN : 92-1-422396

available as a pdf:

http://www.unscear.org/pdffiles/annexj.pdf

[trumad]

30. Dissing Greenpeace?

AS I said,,the numbers are speculative... You claimed that this young Lady is a propagandist.... I say you haven't proved it one bit...

[treepig]

35. if you don't consider inflating the number of fatalities

by anywhere from 100 to 10,000-fold not to be propaganda, then i'm not quite sure what you would acknowledge to be "propaganda." the highest fatality estimates that i've seen are in the 2,300 range if all the children with thyroid cancer end up dying (so the number i cited should probably be characterized in the "thousands" not "hundreds" but it's still orders of magnitude lower than the 40,000 to possibly half million in the photoessay).

and don't find it just a bit odd that a young woman, with no reason to be in the contaminated zone except to satisfy her curiousity, would be allowed to be there? isn't there just the slightest chance that maybe, just maybe, she was allowed access specifically to take the pictures and create the heart-rending website?

if not, and the authorities just allow "anybody" access (which I know they don't, btw) - then the (already grossly inflated) health problems trumpeted by the ukranian government become even more suspect from the point of view if they know of the problems, why are they providing access to people and thereby amplifying the problems.

and while greanpeace does plenty of worthwhile things, in cases where they blatantly mis-respresent reality - then i see nothing sacred about them - they're quite dis-worthy in my estimation (especially because if they spread lies in one area, every thing else they're attempting to do becomes less credible - of course they may be aiming at peta-style extremism - in other words just trying to catch people's attention by the shocking nature of their claims/actions).

[onethatcares]

28. the reactor in Ohio, the one with acid dripping on it,

that wasn't even close to this? TMI, my sil lived within 7 miles of the plant, they sold their house to the govenment. She's older now and scared.

As far as the 20k deaths a year that coal provides, isn't it funny the administration has seen fit to allow coal fired plants the luxury of not upgrading their emission controls when modernizing?

Those pictures are very scary, imagine Philedelphia or Phoenix looking like that?

[amazona]

33. this is a popular myth but alas not true

Certainly the same event could happen here. We have many reactors in the same style, especially in the Savannah area. Unfortunately, many of our military reactors are of almost exactly the same design as the Chernobyl reactor.

When the event happened, the U.S. nuclear industry spread a great many lies, even claiming that the Chernobyl reactor was unshieldded (or course it wasn't). But I thought these claims had been put to bed many years ago.

Apparently not.

Sigh.

As far as "designs abandoned decades ago," technically all U.S. designs were abandoned decades ago, as we haven't built any new reactors in so long. Precisely because they're so unsafe. I think it was in 1972 that a hijacker first commandeered a Southwest Airlines flight and threatened to fly it into a nuclear reactor. We still don't know how to secure a nuclear reactor against a commercial airliner loaded with fuel.

If you want to take such a chance, fine. But not in my backyard, thank you. If nuclear reactors were safe, the insurance industry would not refuse to insure against nuclear disaster -- they would eagerly sell the worthless policies to get your dollar. You can be sure that an actuary knows the real odds of disaster, and no actuary is willing to take that bet.

No one dislikes coal more than I. My family is from Appalachia. Be that as it may, many nuclear power plants are COAL FIRED. If you think going nuclear is going to stop coal, you have been very badly misinformed.

[treepig]

37. if you'd spend some time reading the posts in the thread

before posting yourself, you might avoid looking foolish (if that type of thing is important to you)

for example, information in post #10 directly rebuts your claim:

"We still don't know how to secure a nuclear reactor against a commercial airliner loaded with fuel."

and the real claim (which is true) was that chernobyl did not have a containment building, not that it was unshielded.

further, the only similarities between chernobyl and any reactors in the usa are that they are graphite-based (instead of using water as coolant) - otherwise there are significant design differences.

btw, can you buy insurance against a comet destroying your house?

[TOhioLiberal]

39. Yes it CAN happen!

And nearly did! See the story in the Daily Outrage:

http://www.thenation.com/outrage/index.mhtml?pid=1297v

<snip>
The inside of Davis-Besse's reactor vessel (which holds the core) was lined with 3/16-of-an-inch stainless steel. That thin liner -- pushed like a bubble back out of the lid hole by the 2,500 psi of pressure inside the vessel -- was all that stood between Toledo and Chernobyl
<snip>

Would have devastated Toledo (where I live)& all the communities between, or Cleveland & suburbs. Lake Erie for sure either way.
Trekkerlass

[zizzer]

11. THEIF!

It stole my precious!

Grumble ... grumble ...

I usulay stay out of the GD and stick with the lounge, cause I'm not so interested in being deep but I saw a pointer to this thread from the thread I started over in the Lounge about this this morning and thought I would come check it out.

Can a Charnobyl happen in the US? Honestly, probably not(and that is the best I will give it) ... probably not, but not out of the question. On the other hand, environmental disasters come in MANY shapes and colors (think Bopal) and can happen just about anywhere there is large scale production of chemicals or power. It can. I'm not saying it will, just that it can.

My point in all of this was 1) a warning to take care and 2) to show the tenacity of the human spirit.

[hunter]

19. This is a wonderful web page.

Thanks!

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. Are you self-employed?

:hi:
BTW, the "Projects" link at your main page gives me a dead link.

[trumad]

23. It's one of my many abandoned web sites...LOL

And yes I am....

[Blue_Tires]

29. she's a good looker

talented, too

[ElsewheresDaughter]

31. wow trumad that was really a nice thing that you did you are a good soul

[drewb]

34. Awesome...

Thanks!

[NewHampster]

38. Excuse me. This is wonderful, but

Thank you for the link to her angelfire site. She tells a story that needs to be told again and again. but...

I'm a web guy and no matter how good the intent, I would never consider taking someone else's copyrighted work, reformatting it and creating a new page. Without consent no less.

Like many others I link to sites and pull images into my blog but copy word for word and put it into one page because you think it works better? Who are you to decide what is right or wrong?

Isn't that exactly the type of demagoguery we're fighting in the White House?

[trumad]

40. Then fucking sue me....

[NewHampster]

41. Cute

[trumad]

42. Damn right I am...

But thanks so much for chiming in....

[Alpharetta]

45. Great page

thanks for sharing that