Ruchira Paul alerted me to this article about a scientific fight between Robert J. Baker of Texas Tech University (who I never heard of) who alleges that the evacuation of humans from the area allowed animals to come in and multiply with no apparent bad consequences from radiation, and Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina (who I have met and read and greatly respect) who finds whopping numbers of bad mutations in the region and very low fertility rates. The first argues that the populations are growing, while the latter suggests that the area is a sink for animals who come in but are unable to sustain their populations once there.
I am not sure who is right, but the first thing I noticed in the article (and this may not be true in the real world, but article makes it seem so) is that all the work by Baker is on small mammals, while all the work by Mousseau is on birds. Perhaps mammals are better able to cope with radiation than birds? Any thoughts?
Comments
I suspect that it is a combination. The lack of humans benefits some species more than the radiation harms them, and vice versa.
Posted by: christopher gwyn | June 8, 2007 7:43 PM
I have a bias in favor of the bird guy, so when I saw the article I was kind of skeptical of the positive claims. I think there probably is a benefit for the animals in keeping humans away. So some animals might benefit in the less radioactive areas or if they are more tolerant.
I think there was a study a while back about barn swallows preferring to nest in areas around Chernobyl with less radiation, but I don't remember where I found it.
Posted by: John | June 8, 2007 10:26 PM
I'm thinking bad reporting and a perceived need for conflict. There's always more to the story than you'll find in the newspaper.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 9, 2007 1:20 AM
Bora, check this out!
http://chernobyl.users.cg.yu/
(got there following the link http://blog.b92.net/arhiva/node/5488)
Posted by: Tanja Sova | June 9, 2007 11:23 AM
Can radiation cause eggshell thinning? If so that could be one possible reason why birds aren't coming back as far as mammals. Also, trees with seeds/berries commonly eaten by the birds could have lingering toxicity, although there are plenty of herbivorous mammals as well...
Posted by: Anne-Marie | June 9, 2007 1:43 PM
For more information on this topic (from the bird guy's perspective at least), check out:
http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/Chernobyl.htm
TAM
Posted by: TAM | June 10, 2007 5:44 PM
TAM: Thank you for coming by and linking to this resource. I wonder if Baker will also make an appearance.
Posted by: coturnix | June 10, 2007 8:16 PM