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."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Alphatool on Tuesday March 18 2014, @09:30PM
It's not the same thing at all. The experiments at BNL investigated the (undisputed) negative effects of very high radiation doses, in the order of several sieverts per day. The area around Chernobyl is typically less than a milli sievert per day, so the experiments at BNL were using radiation that was several orders of magnitude higher.
It's also worth noting that the BNL experiments did not observe any negative effects once the radiation field dropped off to levels similar to the area around Chernobyl, so if anything the BNL experiments actually contradict this research rather than supporting it.