this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
635 points (97.9% liked)

Science Memes

10885 readers
5041 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago (8 children)

How is Chernobyl safe for wildlife now, but this book is still dangerous?

[–] [email protected] 65 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Um, Chernobyl is still extremely radioactive. You probably mean the exclusion zone which is really not that bad, there's even tourists going there. But it's still not recommended to live there due to cumulative exposure.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (4 children)

So the site itself is still deadly, but the areas around it are not? Would that be the case for a nuclear attack as well? Like ground zero would stay deadly but the rest of the city would be safe a few decades later? I just realized that I don't actually know very much about nuclear fallout. How are Hiroshima and Nagasaki safe?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago

Complex topic. It would depend on the bomb in question. Some are more "dirty" than others.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The clouds of radioactive gases carry radiated dust particles that are carried by winds and settle on the ground, roofs, etc (fallout). That's why after Chernobyl or the Japanese cities were attacked it was very important which way the wind was pushing the clouds carrying the tiny debris, ash, and dust and how the Chernobyl disaster was detected by other countries in the path.

You probably also want to avoid trying to grow any crops in the area because one way to deal with the radioactive dust is to bury it under the top soil, and buildings that have been closed since Chernobyl that still have the dust trapped inside are still very dangerous.

Edit: the bombs in Japan exploded high above the ground to maximize damage and minimize fallout. The gases were carrying less radiated particles, and mostly dispersed after the initial blast or carried by winds. The gases over Chernobyl kept going until the fires were out.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

It's been a couple of decades since I watched the documentary so maybe my memory is betraying me but from what I remember the bombs dropped on Japan didn't touch the ground. They detonated in the air so there technically isn't a ground zero.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Generally the really nasty gamma emitting fission products lose their nastiness after a couple of months. Their half lives tend to be counted in hours.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Interesting video on Chernobyl and the people still living in the exclusion zone.

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20140116-cooking-in-the-danger-zone-chernobyl

I can't watch the video via the BBC site but it exists elsewhere.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

they didn't say the book is dangerous, they said it's radioactive

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It isn't "safe" it's "safe enough" for limited visits to the exclusion zone and VERY limited visits to the sarcophagus that enclosed the old reactor

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So what about the animals around there? Are they all dying from radiation poisoning, or turning into Godzilla, or something?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I was gonna answer that most animals don't live as long and reproduce faster than humans (so populations survive despite increased cancer risk), but when I looked into it I found a deep rabbit hole. In the case of wolves, I'm sure plenty died early on, because the populations present appear to have some genetic immune adaptations that protect them from cancer. I know other species (like frogs) have dark skin because the melenin increased the survival rate of the darker frogs at the time of the accident. So that is to say probably a lot of wildlife died, and that natural selection lead to some critters that are pretty resistant to radiation.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Wow, that's actually really cool! Not the dying part, but the adapting part. Thanks for sharing!

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Chernobyl was made into a TV show while this book appears to be just a book.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

So if we make a movie about this book then it can be handled again? Or does it have to be a full 10 hour show?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

fun fact: the other three reactors in Chernobyl were put in operation again AFTER reactor 4 blew up
I believe the last one for 14 additional years

how safe that was is another question though

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think we can safely say with hindsight, it was very safe. Reactor 4 was caused by a fluke of circumstances and a few mistakes. It was otherwise a very safe reactor. Once they understood the failure they are able to adjust protocol to ensure it doesn't happen again. It made the other reactors even safer.

The same thing happened with three mile island. Unit 1 safely continued operation until 2019, which only stopped because of financial pressures (competition with Methane), not because anything was wrong.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

I mean, RBMK based reactors are still in use today, no?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Different radioactive materials have different half-life periods.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Chernobyl isn't safe safe, it's just safe enough for wildlife to survive there, possibly with lowered life span and quality of life.

Also, there's a decent danger of radioactive dust coming off the book if it's handled. It may not be that radioactive, but if it clings to you, or you breathe it in, it will do considerably more damage than if it was all one solid rock that made geiger counters click.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

The wildlife is just left alone, I wouldn't call it safe from radiation, they still have a higher incidence of mutations than animals outside the contaminated zones. It's just that some radiation and no humans, happens to be better for wildlife than no radiation and lots of humans.