Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday March 18 2014, @12:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the goats-are-cheaper dept.

mrbluze writes:

"Rachel Nuwer from the Smithsonian Mag gives a good summary around a paper entitled "Highly reduced mass loss rates and increased litter layer in radioactively contaminated areas" (Oecologia, March 2014):

In the areas with no radiation, 70 to 90 percent of the leaves were gone after a year. But in places where more radiation was present, the leaves retained around 60 percent of their original weight.

... the Chernobyl area is at risk of fire, and 27 years' worth of leaf litter, (researcher) Mousseau and his colleagues think, would likely make a good fuel source for such a forest fire. This poses a more worrying problem than just environmental destruction: Fires can potentially redistribute radioactive contaminants to places outside of the exclusion zone, Mousseau says. 'There is growing concern that there could be a catastrophic fire in the coming years.'

A forest fire burning radioactive plant debris could be catastrophic. The Fukushima disaster is likely to have the same problems locally, but it poses additional risks because radioactive water continues to flow into the sea at an alarming rate, which will likely affect oceanic bacterial levels in a similar way."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Alphatool on Tuesday March 18 2014, @09:21PM

    by Alphatool (1145) on Tuesday March 18 2014, @09:21PM (#18245)

    I've not only read the abstract, I have read the paper too. Once you get into the details the statistics don't stand up, and neither do the claims of a dose response. The statements in the abstract massively overstate the results that were found, particularly any link between radiation exposure and any effects. It did find a link between the thickness of the forest floor and decrease in mass loss from the bags, but there are lots of better explanations (such as variations in sunlight and wind) to explain this than radiation, and these weren't investigated. Instead, radiation was blamed without any evidence. It's very shoddy work.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2