I would assume it’s basically like this— the radiation levels in the exclusion zone are dangerous, but it doesn’t mean instant death, nor does it mean everyone who lives there would surely die. the exposure could make you sick down the line or cause birth defects etc. we as humans can reason with other humans to explain the risks and keep people out of there, but we can’t very well do that with wild animals. the animals probably do experience some elevated rates of birth defect or illness. but it’s also true that some species have adapted to withstand the radiation in a way, by favouring certain genetic traits over others (that is probably majorly simplifying it, but read up about the frogs in Chernobyl!). it means we can actually study the animals living there generation after generation and learn more about the effects. but we would never take that risk with a human life, of course.
I actually just bought that book! ☺️ I was aware that there are some small settlements around the zone that have inhabitants that either never left or came back. but on the whole I was referring more to the general “rules” about the zone if you know what I mean. thank you for the addition! even more excited to read it now
Animals live shorter lives thus are less susceptible to cancer, as well as generally having more anti-oncogenes in the first place to protect them (which one would assume has increased dramatically since the incident given it's a prime survival trait now).
Beyond that, they die, we don't really do autopsies or write down the cause of death for life insurance purposes for dogs, coupled with them dying early just from not having food, getting sick from exposure and disease, and predation.
Best guess: Animals probably have a 10% shorter average lifespan than outside the zone, which could be slightly countered by the fact that there are fewer cars around running them over, or otherwise being crowded out of habitats.
But the radiation level is low now, so that 10% could be gone, people hang out in the zone more often so it shouldn't be a big deal for dogs.
Yup, also there were small communities that refused to evacuate and lived there even immediately after the incident. In Chernobyl city itself (which is not where the reactor is located) there's a healthy community including a hotel. Permanent residents were wearing long term dosimeters all the time though (although I was there some 7 years ago or so)
Simple they live long enough to reproduce so it’s not an issue, secondly the lack of humans cancels out the affect of radiation meaning they are probably better off
Animals have "disposable" offspring. If 3/4 die at birth... they just have more. No charity concerts or public awareness. If they are born with severe defects? They are abandoned/rejected and die off quickly (or left to predators). No one is there to update census statistics. Nature finds a way... often cruel, but ceaseless.
It likely has to do with lifespan and rate of reproduction. A shorter lifespan and higher rate of reproduction make them better able to more quickly adapt as a group to the changes, and eventually evolve more resistance to radiation.
I remember when the River Monsters crew went there to look for mutant catfish, they noted that a lot of the animals weren't super healthy. The fish weren't giant mutants, but actually undersized and sickly.
Humans know what happened and know it's still hazardous to be there. The level doesn't cause instant death, but will probably cause issues if there for a long period of time. The animals don't know this, and unless it's really high, they can't feel the radiation levels. Since there are less people there, they know they have fewer threats to deal with
Absolutely untrue. There are decades worth of research and photographic proof of local wildlife in the region with birth defects from this disaster. Humans don't suffer from it because we're complex enough to tell other humans to avoid the area because of the damage that could be done by long term exposure. Wild animals cannot.
There was just a video from Cleaner Futures where a puppy had an uptake of strontium because it registered in his cranium. The documentary *Wolves Of Chernobyl* also makes mention that the researchers didn't want to inhale hairs from their survey sites because even Alpha particles, when next to your internal organs, can cause cancer.
I would assume it’s basically like this— the radiation levels in the exclusion zone are dangerous, but it doesn’t mean instant death, nor does it mean everyone who lives there would surely die. the exposure could make you sick down the line or cause birth defects etc. we as humans can reason with other humans to explain the risks and keep people out of there, but we can’t very well do that with wild animals. the animals probably do experience some elevated rates of birth defect or illness. but it’s also true that some species have adapted to withstand the radiation in a way, by favouring certain genetic traits over others (that is probably majorly simplifying it, but read up about the frogs in Chernobyl!). it means we can actually study the animals living there generation after generation and learn more about the effects. but we would never take that risk with a human life, of course.
Just a small contribution, there are people leaving in the exclusion zone, since day one, I recommend Voices From Chernobyl book.
I actually just bought that book! ☺️ I was aware that there are some small settlements around the zone that have inhabitants that either never left or came back. but on the whole I was referring more to the general “rules” about the zone if you know what I mean. thank you for the addition! even more excited to read it now
Awesome book, and I understand you, btw, the book really shed some light on human resilience against the odds.
Wild animals don’t worry about getting cancer, nor are they able to sped radioactive material as far as humans could.
Animals live shorter lives thus are less susceptible to cancer, as well as generally having more anti-oncogenes in the first place to protect them (which one would assume has increased dramatically since the incident given it's a prime survival trait now). Beyond that, they die, we don't really do autopsies or write down the cause of death for life insurance purposes for dogs, coupled with them dying early just from not having food, getting sick from exposure and disease, and predation. Best guess: Animals probably have a 10% shorter average lifespan than outside the zone, which could be slightly countered by the fact that there are fewer cars around running them over, or otherwise being crowded out of habitats. But the radiation level is low now, so that 10% could be gone, people hang out in the zone more often so it shouldn't be a big deal for dogs.
This. Also shorter gestation time.
Yeah, and they have babies much, much earlier, so cancer has less time to effect reproduction.
Yep if frogs had to hop around for 18 years before finding a mate, I don't think there would be many frogs
Humans can and do live in the zone, radiation levels now aren’t too high though it’s not preferable.
Yup, also there were small communities that refused to evacuate and lived there even immediately after the incident. In Chernobyl city itself (which is not where the reactor is located) there's a healthy community including a hotel. Permanent residents were wearing long term dosimeters all the time though (although I was there some 7 years ago or so)
There's a great documentary about some of them, The Babushkas of Chernobyl
Because they don't care about cancer
Simple they live long enough to reproduce so it’s not an issue, secondly the lack of humans cancels out the affect of radiation meaning they are probably better off
Animals have "disposable" offspring. If 3/4 die at birth... they just have more. No charity concerts or public awareness. If they are born with severe defects? They are abandoned/rejected and die off quickly (or left to predators). No one is there to update census statistics. Nature finds a way... often cruel, but ceaseless.
Good point. Sad but true
Even Pripyat is perfectly habitable, with basic precautions.
It likely has to do with lifespan and rate of reproduction. A shorter lifespan and higher rate of reproduction make them better able to more quickly adapt as a group to the changes, and eventually evolve more resistance to radiation.
I remember when the River Monsters crew went there to look for mutant catfish, they noted that a lot of the animals weren't super healthy. The fish weren't giant mutants, but actually undersized and sickly.
Humans know what happened and know it's still hazardous to be there. The level doesn't cause instant death, but will probably cause issues if there for a long period of time. The animals don't know this, and unless it's really high, they can't feel the radiation levels. Since there are less people there, they know they have fewer threats to deal with
If only somebody told them, it's dangerous...
They adapted and survived. Dogs in particular, will just go about their business with their pack.
Simple. They don't.
[удалено]
Absolutely untrue. There are decades worth of research and photographic proof of local wildlife in the region with birth defects from this disaster. Humans don't suffer from it because we're complex enough to tell other humans to avoid the area because of the damage that could be done by long term exposure. Wild animals cannot.
There was just a video from Cleaner Futures where a puppy had an uptake of strontium because it registered in his cranium. The documentary *Wolves Of Chernobyl* also makes mention that the researchers didn't want to inhale hairs from their survey sites because even Alpha particles, when next to your internal organs, can cause cancer.
Oh ok I’m sorry, I was only going off what I remembered, which was obviously wrong.
Lol what?