Chernobyl zone turns into testbed for Nature's rebound

April 19, 2016 by Olga Shylenko
Dogs are pictured near a radioactive sign near a crucifix in the ghost city of Prypyat near Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant on April 8, 2016

What happens when the site of the world's worst nuclear accident is left all but abandoned for nearly 30 years?

In the case of Chernobyl, it becomes a unique chance to see how wildlife recovers in what is a giant nature reserve, bereft of humans but tainted by radiation.

"When the people left, nature returned," Denys Vyshnevskiy, a biologist in Chernobyl's so-called exclusion zone, told AFP during a visit, while nearby a herd of wild horses nosed around for food.

Some may wonder how the northern edge of the former Soviet nation, where a part of the station exploded on April 26, 1986, spewing toxic clouds that reached from Sweden to Greece, could host any life forms at all.

About 30 courageous and atrociously under-protected rescuers died in the weeks it took to control the fourth reactor's meltdown and a 2,800-square-kilometre-wide (1,100-square-mile-wide) exclusion zone was set up.

The World Health Organization estimated in 2005 that 4,000 people could eventually die from radiation-related illnesses, a figure that Greenpeace slammed as a gross underestimate.

The region and its 300 or so mostly elderly inhabitants remains far from safe, with radiation readings within 10 kilometres of the plant reaching 1,700 nanosieverts per hour—10 to 35 times the normal background levels observed in the United States.

A wild Przewalski's horse stands on a snow covered field in the Chernobyl exclusion zone

Today's animals in the exclusion may have shorter lifespans and produce fewer offspring, but their numbers and varieties are growing at rates unseen since long before the Soviet Union's 1991 collapse, says Vyshnevskiy.

"Radiation is always here and it has its negative impact," said Vyshnevskiy.

"But it is not as significant as the absence of human intervention."

Environmental renaissance?

About 130,000 people were rushed from the region in the disaster's wake, with signs of former existence like children's sandpits and swings still standing and collecting snow in the winter, as if frozen in time.

With the quick death of the local Red Forest—10 square kilometres of pines that wilted from the radiation that permeated the ground—various birds, rodents and insects were lost.

Maria Urupa, who is in her early 80s, is a "samosely", or self-returner, as inhabitants of the Chernobyl exclusion zone are known

Over time, the forest was cut down and a new, healthy one sprung up in its place.

The exclusion zone was placed under military surveillance to keep away the homesick for their own safety, and while a few hundred pension-aged people slipped back in over the decades, curious things slowly began to emerge in nature.

On the one hand, species dependent on human crops and waste products vanished: white storks, sparrows and pigeons fell silent and no longer filled the skies.

Yet on the other, indigenous species that flourished in the lush flora long before the catastrophe, reappeared.

These include elks, wolves, bears, lynxes, white-tailed eagles and many others.

One of the more brazen experiments came in 1990, when a handful of endangered Dzungarian horses were brought in to see if they would take root. They did so with relish, and about a hundred of them now graze the untended fields.

Abandoned gas masks lay on the floor in a class room in a school of the deserted town of Prypyat, adjacent to the Chernobyl nuclear site

For Vyshnevskiy, the rebound is an "environmental renaissance".

Other scientists, though, are more cautious.

Tim Mousseau, a professor of biological sciences at the University of South Carolina at Columbia, heads a team that has been conducting long-term research into biodiversity at Chernobyl—a mission that they are also carrying out in the zone around Fukushima in Japan.

In a phone interview with AFP, Mousseau said that the range of species, the number of animals and their survivability in Chernobyl is less than what would be expected in a non-contaminated area—especially in "hotspots" where radiation is high.

Butterflies and birds in particular seem to have been affected most, apparently because of susceptibility on a key chromosome, he said.

"When you put a fence around an area, it's clear that some animals will have an opportunity to expand, but because they are visible, it doesn't mean that they have increased as much as they should have, or that you have the biodiversity that you would normally have," Mousseau said.

Chernobyl: chronology of the nuclear disaster

He added in an email: "Overall, in almost all cases, there is a clear signal of the negative effects of on wild populations. Even the cuckoo's call is affected."

Disaster's sole positive outcome

Maryna Shkvyrya, a researcher at the Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology, Ukraine's oldest in the field, also urges prudence to those tempted to idealise the exclusion zone as a nature reserve.

The zone is "unique... but not exactly a paradise for the animals nor an oasis", Shkvyrya said.

"There are lots of people working on the power plant. There are tourists, stalkers and poachers."

Vyshnevskiy says that the biodiversity benefits will rise with time. When the woods sprawl even wider across the empty fields, forest fauna and flora will multiply, he predicts.

"There is a huge contrast between Chernobyl just before the catastrophe and Chernobyl 30 years after," said Vyshnevskiy.

"These animals are probably the only positive outcome of the terrible catastrophe we had".

Explore further: Defying radiation, elderly residents cling on in Chernobyl

Related Stories

Viewing Fukushima in the cold light of Chernobyl

August 21, 2013

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster spread significant radioactive contamination over more than 3500 square miles of the Japanese mainland in the spring of 2011. Now several recently published studies of Chernobyl, directed ...

Recommended for you

Prenatal forest fire exposure stunts children's growth

February 19, 2019

Forest fires are more harmful than previously imagined, causing stunted growth in children who were exposed to smoke while in the womb, according to new research from Duke University and the National University of Singapore.

'Astrocomb' opens new horizons for planet-hunting telescope

February 19, 2019

The hunt for Earth-like planets, and perhaps extraterrestrial life, just got more precise, thanks to record-setting starlight measurements made possible by a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) "astrocomb."


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2016
The region and its 300 or so mostly elderly inhabitants remains far from safe, with radiation readings within 10 kilometres of the plant reaching 1,700 nanosieverts per hour—10 to 35 times the normal background levels observed in the United States.

That's technically 14 mSv/year which is below the 20 mSv/year radiation safety standard for workers, and doses under 50 mSv per year have not proven to have statistically significant health effects in humans, and are considered "minimal risk".

But of course "1,700" looks more dramatic than "14", which is the point of picking that particular unit nSv/h in the first place.

The main problem is rather those "hot spots" where radiation is more concentrated, because the instant dose can be high, and as animals wander in and out of these areas, or even eat the stuff growing there, they get cellular damage and radionuclides embedded in their system which will obviously result in poor health and short lifespan.
5 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2016
In a sense, the hot spots are kinda like a nuclear minefield. Rains and erosion have moved the radionuclides and concentrated them in certain places like river banks and sediments.

A great deal could be done simply by mapping out the hottest concentrations and digging them up. That would put the average exposure levels over the whole area down significantly.

In Kerala Beach, India, there's about 35 mSv per year dose from the naturally occurring thorium and monzanite sand coming from the mountains. The radiation is quite evenly dispersed, as people build their houses out of the sand, grow their food on it and everything. They have approximately 22 times the rate of genetic mutation over the generations compared to nearby island populations, as measured by non-coding portions of mitochondrial DNA, but overall they're about as healthy as anyone.

As far as anyone can tell, they're simply evolving faster than other human populations.
2 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2016
We have not yet had the time to assess the consequences of the genetic damage done at Fukushima and Chernobyl.
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2016
We have not yet had the time to assess the consequences
But we have had the time to assess the consequences of bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers: they are environmentally worse per gigawatt produced than nuclear. LOL
2 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2016
Trying to espouse the safety of nuclear over renewables is futile.
Deaths/yr/TWh: nuclear 0.04, solar 0.44, Wind 0.15, coal 161, and wind/solar is backed by coal and other fossil fuels to compensate intermittency.
5 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2016
But of course "1,700" looks more dramatic than "14", which is the point of picking that particular unit nSv/h in the first place.

Then they would have said 14892000 nSv, which looks more impressive still, right? Of course, that's just hard to read, like 0.0017 mSv. 1700 is an easier, more meaningful number. Unless you're looking for conspiracy theories, then it isn't as easy.
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2016
Video for Willie and the rest of us:
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2016
better video's for the science minded rational thinkers






which is more dangerous, @liar-kam? flying at 33,000ft or standing within 6 meters of a nuclear reactor?

lets not forget the universe and earth itself is "radioactive"

Flying on a plane and next to a reactor measured


1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2016
Gosh, Trumpy, what do your real sources have to say about the possibilities of a Chernobyl?

A Fukushima triple meltdown?

You got trapped between Wiki and your ignorance.
3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2016
gskam feeds himself with his own lies as an animal that eats its own feces.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2016
what do your real sources have to say about
so... that is a no?
to being able to actually answer the questions then?
you know... this one: which is more dangerous, @liar-kam? flying at 33,000ft or standing within 6 meters of a nuclear reactor?

imagine that

since you can't actually answer a basic question, nor can you provide empirical evidence or valid links/references for your claims, i will refrain from pointing out the painfully obvious facts about your epic failure to actually provide answers from your "vast experience" that was proven false by DaSchneib here:

or proven false by a real scientist in my above links

so, feel free to continue to share your vast inexperience
I just needed to point to some valid information for those not interested in your EMO posts
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2016
Is the reactor at Fukushima?

You just keep on reading those posts by the nuke folks, who told us and told us and promised us meltdowns were impossible.

Multiple meltdowns were more than impossible.

To paraphrase a former president: "Let them come to Fukushima!"

See if you can find the original quotation in Wiki.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.