In keeping with the spirit that inspired me to create DZ would like to publish at this time, the position of
Massimo Bonfatti , deliberately ignoring the numerous articles that have appeared recently on the Web about the
"Nature winning on radiation" (or similar securities). I do not deny space to those articles for bias (I've often supported in the past and I have every intention of dadicare them their rightful place in the future) but because, to date, there is no question of current news, nor new nor anything in particular: they are, indeed, years (you can even find something in the Archives in 2008-2009 DZ!) that are periodically published articles of this kind.
much the better, mind you! I, personally, I find them interesting and worthy of attention, when well written and well argued. The fact is that I also find
"embarrassing" recycle every "n" month proposing the same story as if it were the last frontier of discovery in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.
So for this round, I refuse to echo in news - obsolete - and that kind of reserve space in a position
"antagonist" , so to speak, that at least makes the effort to propose a kind of
"point Situational Current:
N amazes me on the fact that, approaching the anniversary of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl (and more since, as this year, the twenty-fifth) and started the trickle of news designed to demonstrate the now
"reassuring" ecological situation around the Chernobyl plant. Seem
news "sensational" , but are the same now circulating for some time and shooting with the desired time limit. The latest in time about items / services with titles like:
"Nature wins at Chernobyl" ,
"A return to the Chernobyl plant," or
Fruit and vegetables from Chernobyl ".
movie watching or reading the articles does not escape, who is attentive, they emphasize the role of nature that wins on radiation (and how it would be nice that was really the case!) without making any analysis or component derived from observations made with scientific procedure, but in placing art in services (overshadowed by the alleged sensationalism of the news ) forms doubt (
"seem" ,
"maybe" ,
"alleged" ,
"we do not know" ).
I remember in 1996 I was in
"exclusion zone" in Khoiniki Province (Belarus) has already started talking about it as
"Park natural ecological provides for the release of the bison from the park Belovezhskaya Pushcha (on the border between Belarus and Poland), as then actually occurred, and the introduction of grapes to produce wine from Moldova.
These claims were supported by projects financed by '
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) which will include dignitaries and local researchers, with the equivalent monthly salaried daily for that time ($ 50). It was the regret that I voiced the late professor Miljutin, Rector of the Minsk Sakharov.
And the current is nothing but the same policy at the time of the IAEA, a cui la maggiore lontananza dall’evento (una generazione) ed il ricordo che tende a scemare (quando non a infastidire in epoca di
“rilancio nucleare” ) permettono una migliore dissimulazione ed una maggiore presunta credibilità.
Ma non è così!
Nel 1999 il professore
Timothy Mousseau , dell’Università della Czarolina del Sud si recò nella
“Zona di esclusione” accompagnato da Anders Møller, un ornitologo e biologo evoluzionista dell’Università Pierre e Marie Curie di Parigi per effettuare una serie di ricerche.
Queste scatenarono un dibattito intenso sugli effetti delle radiazioni sugli esseri umani e animali.
As you know, the radioactive fallout from Chernobyl had contaminated some 80,000 square kilometers of territory in Europe and worldwide, more than 300,000 people were evacuated from an area of \u200b\u200bmore than 1,300 square kilometers around the reactor.
Yet in the face of these data, the abandoned town of Pripyat were coming
described as a "refuge" for wildlife : numerous sightings of wolves, bears and moose wandering through the deserted streets and swallows flying between the buildings abandoned.
The underlying implication was as follows: If the wildlife could come back so soon, nuclear radiation, and thus the atomic energy, could not be as dangerous as claimed.
James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia theory, wrote that even the natural world
"would be eligible to receive and protect against external agents, including humans, nuclear waste ... preference for wildlife sites nuclear waste, suggests that the best sites for disposal are the tropical forests and other inaccessible habitats from development ".
The ratio of the Chernobyl Forum in 2005, downplayed the consequences of Chernobyl, saying that in the long term, tumors caused by the accident at the end just kill about 4,000 people (sigh!).
In fact,
in an era of "dirty bombs" and nuclear proliferation , Chernobyl has only the function of
be "an extreme consequence of an experiment malicious .
But even if the radiation levels have decreased over the course of 25 years, there are still areas
"hot" . Prof. Mosseau has, in fact, found that the most contaminated areas are microSieverts 300 / hour (Geiger counter), more than 1,200 times the normal levels of radiation, or 15 times more than a chest radiograph. It is, therefore, the long-term exposure (the real parameter to be taken into account) to become deleterious and, therefore, environmental contamination by radionuclides such as cesium 137, strontium 90 and plutonium 239, which have half-lives of respectively 30, 28.5 and 24,100 years.
Because, after which, the radionuclides will decay to half their previous levels, it means that they will continue for years to contaminate the land (for example, 300 years for cesium 137).
Mousseau says
"What we should worry about is power, as ingestion is the main route for exposure el'intossicazione radioactive" .
And despite the stories about nature thriving in the Chernobyl zone, the professor, even then and now, not is convinced.
His first discovery (along with Møller), was the increase in genetic mutations of the bird population, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. The pair examined
20,000
"barn swallows from" finding in these animals legs crooked, misshapen nose, malformed tails, eyes and irregular tumors.
Some birds have red feathers, which should have been blue, and vice versa.
Due to the contamination of the food chain, species of birds had declined by more than 50% in areas of high radioactive contamination. Only a small proportion of swallows can reproduce, and only 5% of the eggs can hatch. Less than a third of the birds reach l’età adulta. Mousseau e Møller hanno potuto confermare queste anomalie genetiche esaminando lo sperma delle rondini.
Una delle loro scoperte più interessanti fu la connessione tra gli antiossidanti, le radiazioni ed il colore del piumaggio. In altre parole, negli esseri umani e negli uccelli, gli antiossidanti aiutano ad annullare gli effetti delle radiazioni.
“Gli uccelli, con piumaggio brillante, che migrano a grandi distanze, come le rondini, devono impiegare un altissimo tasso metabolico producendo, come sottoprodotto, molti radicali liberi che, a loro volta, danneggiano i tessuti” , spiega Mousseau.
“Devono quindi utilizzare le scorte di antiossidanti presenti nel blood and liver to compensate for this potential damage. Females use large amounts of antioxidants for their eggs, and this is the reason why even the yolk is bright yellow ".
But at the end of their migration energy resources need to be replenished.
"And this is not possible to build in areas heavily contaminated" .
Insects also suffer the effects of radioactivity. In the most contaminated areas there are fewer butterflies, bees, grasshoppers, dragonflies and spiders.
"The fact that insects, including pollinators, are susceptible to contamination has a significant impact on the rest of the ecosystem" . The contents of
Mousseau, then, is the portrait of an ecosystem in crisis.
How do other scientists to prove the contrary? For example, doctors and
Baker Chesser of Texas Tech. University, published their study in the journal
"American Scientist" in 2006. "We were surprised by the variety of mammals living in the shadow of the destroyed reactor after so short a time."
These studies, in contrast with those of Moller and Mousseau, speak of a wild boar population 10 to 15 times higher than outside the exclusion zone and not found high rates of mutation or evidence that survival rates differ among animals living in Chernobyl with those living in clean environments. But
Mousseau says
"Chernobyl is not a lunar landscape. E 'possible to see birds and mammals, wolves, foxes, there are trees and plants - so it's not a total desert. The reason for this misconception is that the concentration of radioactive contamination is not uniform. So you can have as many living beings and bodies in an area, and none in another. For a biologist, however, this should be evident ". And this is what, from another point of view, has shown Professor Bandazhevsky.
The presence of areas with decreased levels of radioactive contamination, do not immediately produce new living organisms have appeared (flora and fauna), symptom or disease manifestations: this is what makes you believe or deceive a return to normal. But in these less contaminated areas, in which the radioactive decay for various reasons it was faster, there is the constant and chronic action of radionuclides such as cesium
, the
strontium and plutonium
, of \u200b\u200bwhich the half-life (or half-life) is not equivalent to half of its duration in the environment, but defines the time required perché la metà degli atomi decadano in un altro elemento. Per questo bisogna già pensare alla pericolosa attività di alcuni prodotti derivati, quali l’
Americio e il
Bario . Questa azione a lungo tempo si manifesta con una emissione costante di basse dosi di radiazioni che, col tempo appunto, indurranno mutazioni genetiche negli organismi viventi residenti (senza evidenza clinica e, quindi, supportando l’idea/illusione di un
“buon stato di salute” ) e, solo secondariamente (anni successivi o future generazioni) e sotto il loro continuo stimolo, potranno dare segni oggettivi.
Questa è la realtà che deve tenere presente chi osserva l’evolversi events not only in the exclusion zone, but in all areas affected by radioactive fallout.
Another approach, not only scientifically wrong, it's dishonest. I therefore agree with
Mousseau that, where scientists (mainly Ukrainians) who criticize the conclusions of his study and for which the area is becoming a haven for wildlife because of the lack of human interference, says that these statements are
"merely anecdotal" .
is in favor of Mousseau is the fact that no one has been able to make a search so strict (almost four years of cataloging and study, rigorous counting of those surveyed, their distribution and relationship to the background contamination).
"The animals under investigation, and especially birds, offer the best" quantitative measure "the impact on wildlife and the census of radioactive contamination of animal species in this area, carried out for nearly four years has produced considerable evidence that show that the radioactivity has a "significant impact" on biodiversity loss. The truth is that the harmful effects of radioactive contamination are so great as to be overwhelming. This is the first document that provides rigorous, quantitative data on the fact that the life of mammals zona chiusa è significativamente influenzata dalla presenza della contaminazione radioattiva. In ogni caso, non penso che sia una cattiva idea definire questa zona
“un rifugio per la fauna selvatica” , se questo venisse però utilizzato come
“laboratorio naturale”, in cui fosse possibile studiare le conseguenze a lungo termine di un incidente di tale tipo” .
Il professor Mousseu ha anche criticato un recente film documentario intitolato “
Chernobyl, a natural history" , promosso da una società di produzione francese (chissà come mai, proprio francese!!!!), che mostra come la natura abbia
"recolonized" the exclusion zone in the absence of man
"If the company wants to know more about long-term consequences of large environmental disasters - and Chernobyl is just one of many - it is important that all of us (researchers) We assume our responsibilities seriously ". In addition, Professor Mousseau
has recently begun to collaborate with the Hospital of Biology radioactive in Kiev for a long-term study on people living in the area: more than 11,000 adults and 2,000 children in the region of Naroda, 50 kilometers from Chernobyl .
The professor says that the incidence of cancer of the defects alla nascita e la riduzione della vita media è, tra gli abitanti della regione, allarmante:
“Esiste una montagna di informazioni che comprendono tutti i punti sulle conseguenze significative dell’esposizione cronica alle radiazioni della popolazione umana. Quali saranno le conseguenze per i figli di questi bambini?” Anche i dati resi pubblici dal prof Bandazhevsky ne sono un’ulteriore conferma: soprattutto l’inversione delle linee dei tassi di natalità e mortalità nelle zone maggiormente contaminate (proprio in prossimità di quella
“zona di esclusione” che, per alcuni, si è rivitalizzata), l’aumento dei tumori e delle patologie del cardiovascular system (especially in children) and diseases and birth defects.
I would still remember how, from research to Møller and Mousseau, it appears the best wisdom of the swallows in relation to human recolonisation. In Chernobyl, in fact, the birds choose to nest in sites with low levels of background radioactivity. Møller and Mousseau are located, for their research, more than 200 nest boxes in the Red Forest, about 3 km away from the nuclear reactor exploded in 1986. Using these artificial nests, the two researchers have studied the nesting habits of two species of birds - the great tit Parus major and the pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca. They wanted to see if either species would differentiate between nesting sites with high and low levels of background radiation. The nest boxes were found to be in very similar positions with comparable food resources at your bill, but with a different background radioactivity due to the patchy distribution of the fallout after an accident. The levels near some nests were 2,000 times higher than the natural background radioactivity. Møller and Mousseau noted that both species have much prefer nests placed in areas of low radioactivity and the pied flycatcher appears to be more sensitive than the great tit. And this should teach us anything?
Finally, a brief reference regarding the possibility to grow in the exclusion zone of Chernobyl: simply the best way to utter many isotopes underground, as well as bring them into contact with groundwater.
Yeah, from my first trips in the areas contaminated by Chernobyl (1994), heard about deep plowing and burglary for trying to "dilute" the radioactive contamination present on the ground. All useless!
Now with the possibility to restart cultivation forms will be reintroduced these techniques (and others) that are typical of agriculture.
If not a crime, at least one big stupid for these new
"Strangelove" (in the sense of the song Vecchioni:
"And the biggest conquered nation after nation / and when it was opposite the" zone "felt a jerk / farther because you could not win anything ... " ) .
's new film Alexander 
In cooperation with the Russian community 
As anticipated a few days ago, here's the first list of questions and answers, published today on the official Facebook page dedicated STALKER 
