nerdgirl 0 #1 October 20, 2009 The radioactive rabbit feces is not a joke, although I admit I chuckled; the nuclear forensics idea is mine. Even Rabbit Droppings Count in Nuclear Cleanup:“A government contractor at Hanford, in south-central Washington State, just spent a week mapping radioactive rabbit feces with detectors mounted on a helicopter flying 50 feet over the desert scrub. An onboard computer used GPS technology to record each location so workers could return later to scoop up the droppings for disposal as low-level radioactive waste.”“The area had […] been used by rabbits that had also burrowed into other areas that were contaminated. Many of the contaminants were in the form of salts, which attract wildlife. The rabbits carried strontium and cesium, which emit gamma rays, back out of the area in their digestive tracts. [yummy strontium – nerdgirl]“Rabbits were not the only biological vectors contaminated by the nuclear residue. Mice and badgers also picked it up, she said, and coyotes feed on the contaminated smaller animals. ‘It’s basically a circle-of-life situation,’ [so many potential sarcastic comments … -nerdgirl] she [Dee Millikin, “a spokeswoman for the contractor”] said, adding that researchers have also found traces of radioactive materials in fish of the adjacent Columbia River.” I gotta wonder what the fauna in Kazakhstan where the Soviets did a whole lot of testing is ingesting and carrying off with it. One might also imagine a CIA or DARPA program to train indigenous wildlife as animal-intelligence collectors. Instead of HUMINT have “ANIMINT,” eh? … Wonder what are local fauna in Iran? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #2 October 20, 2009 >I gotta wonder what the fauna in Kazakhstan where the Soviets did >a whole lot of testing is ingesting and carrying off with it. Ironically the area around Chernobyl is one of the healthiest ecosystems in the (former) USSR. Not because of the radiation; it's deadly in places. But just because there are no people there. Sort of a sad commentary on the risks of high levels of nuclear waste to wildlife vs. the risk of people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 280 #3 October 20, 2009 Quote Ironically the area around Chernobyl is one of the healthiest ecosystems in the (former) USSR. Not because of the radiation; it's deadly in places. But just because there are no people there. I've seen some articles about that: Get rid of humans' activity and a lot of animals do better. Despite the image of an animal utopia as flora overgrow concrete, I have heard of more in-depth studies that found a lot of mutations and deformities in animals, even questioning whether some mutations would spread to wider populations. (Presumably since some mutations are not so adverse in reducing reproductive success.) I'm not sure about the balance among the different viewpoints. I just wanted to help clarify that the situation isn't as ideal for wildlife as sometimes presented. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 October 20, 2009 Quote Ironically the area around Chernobyl is one of the healthiest ecosystems in the (former) USSR. Not because of the radiation; it's deadly in places. But just because there are no people there. Sort of a sad commentary on the risks of high levels of nuclear waste to wildlife vs. the risk of people. Or an indictment of environmentalism in the USSR? Bikini Atoll has a lot going for it, but I believe the coconuts are still radioactive, so it's not exactly a victory for the earth, and it's been ~60 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #5 October 20, 2009 > I have heard of more in-depth studies that found a lot of mutations >and deformities in animals . . . I have heard them as well. But to a fox, having three of six kits in a litter die due to radiation poisoning vs. due to a trap isn't much different in the long run. And, as time goes on, radiation levels decrease. >even questioning whether some mutations would spread to wider >populations. (Presumably since some mutations are not so adverse in >reducing reproductive success.) Also agreed - but that's often referred to as "evolution," and in general hasn't had a negative impact on ecosystems. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #6 October 20, 2009 Pretty mad! I once done a night freefall decent into a very, very rarely used Southern Californian desert DZ a number of years ago, and inadvertently left behind a green cyalume/glo-stick. Unfortunately a farmer came across it, later on that night, and went a bit mental thinking it was radioactive material - as in the radioactive bar Homer drops down his neck on the opening sequence of the Simpsons - and phoned the police. . . It caused a bit of an uproar for a short period . . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #7 October 20, 2009 Quote Ironically the area around Chernobyl is one of the healthiest ecosystems in the (former) USSR. Not because of the radiation; it's deadly in places. But just because there are no people there. ...Of course, the animals all have 5 legs... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #8 October 20, 2009 Quote Many of the contaminants were in the form of salts, which attract wildlife. Gives a whole new definition to spicy... We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #9 October 21, 2009 QuoteQuote Ironically the area around Chernobyl is one of the healthiest ecosystems in the (former) USSR. Not because of the radiation; it's deadly in places. But just because there are no people there. ...Of course, the animals all have 5 legs... Hey, if 4 is good, 5 must be better.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #10 October 21, 2009 Nuclear, Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #11 October 21, 2009 I had to restrain myself from posting the link to that after reading this thread yesterday morning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
