During a test of Reactor number four on April 26, 1986, engineers lost control of the Chernobyl Power Plant, resulting in a series of explosions and fires. The reactor building was demolished and large amounts of radiation were released into the atmosphere. Radioactive elements including iodine, strontium, and cesium, were scattered across Europe, with the areas closest to the plant receiving the highest concentrations of radioactive isotopes. Approximately 150,000 square kilometers (close to 6,000 square miles) in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine were highly contaminated. It’s estimated that Chernobyl’s nuclear meltdown released about 400 times more radiation than the Hiroshima bomb. However, it’s important to note that the immediate death toll was far greater for Hiroshima, since Hiroshima was a densely-populated city.
Chernobyl is widely considered to be the worst nuclear plant accident in history. The meltdown was given the highest rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale, Level 7. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011 is the only other event to receive a Level 7 rating. Twenty-five years after the Chernobyl disaster, radiation levels continue to be unsafe in areas surrounding the plant, and meltdown-related environmental and health effects in the region persist.
Please note that the “study” described above from the New York Academy of Sciences was not sponsored or prepared by the Academy. As their own website describes, they are solely the publisher:
http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1
Also on the same webpage, the NYAS has posted a highly critical review of the work.
the long term death tools will probrably out number Hiroshima. But it is hard to say. How many people were killed in the initial blast at Chernobyl? and how many people from the neiboring city of prabist, forgive my spelling, were killed ? from the chilling pictures it looks like the fallout or the blast damaged buildings melted plastic toys and blew out windows, I saw Gas masks or some kind of radiation protective gear laying on a desk in what looked like a classroom. All I could think of is how horrible. the people had little warning. Were they evacuated in time?
Greetings,
I watched last night’s “Radioactive Wolves” special and was deeply moved and surprised at the abundance of true wildlife.
I am a nature lover and not a specialist or professional in the field so I cannot comment on the comparisons between the two disasters.
I found most of the wolves episode to be remarkable along with the eagles, hawks, wild horses, bison, storks, beavers, who seem to be thriving in this damaged environment.
I was saddened that the two German’s studying the wolves used a cruel trap to collar the wolves. There was a brief moment when one glanced at the wolf paw after removing the trap and he noted the paw didn’t appear to be harmed. This part seemed purposely vague. Lucky wolf. How about the other wolves? Why do people studying animals still use these outdated and painful methods? If I am mistaken about the type of traps used, please enlighten me.
After seeing the murdered tigers/lions in Ohio, I need some good news about people and the animals we should be cherishing.
well, I am not sure, but I believe the trap was not one of the ones with those interlocking teeth that usualy and purposefully break the legs of the victum, and I am guessing, i can’t know for shure, I’ve never been stuck in one, but i think it would hurt verry much to be stuck even in one without teeth. but i think it could be a last resort kind of thing, i mean it’s hard to catch an animal without a trap and maybe that is the best one avalible.
I also saw the special on PBS and was deeply moved and amazed how plus the area looked. i would love to do some wolf work where ever needed, just dont know who to contact. thank you, Erika Kovis
I really don’t think it’s in the scientists interest to harm the wolves when they trap them, so my guess is the traps are some kind of plastic or mesh based leghold traps. It would be pointless to use traps that commonly broke the legs of the animals they cause, because an injured animal is as good as dead out in the wild. I’m sure trapping a wolf isn’t a pretty sight either way (and probably why they don’t show it), but I’m sure it’s as humane as they can make it.
I did not see any report of some possible genetic problems with the animals living there.Has a study been done on this?
What about the plants and other animals that are eaten by the carnivores? Wouldn’t those food sources be contaminated?
It would be interesting to find out the death rates of the wolves and other wildlife compared to non-contaminated areas.
I don’t think any of the above was talked about (sometimes I don’t catch everything). I hope someone could answer these questions or give me a link to some of this info.
Thanks
Nancy brings up some of the same questions I started to think about after viewing this show. There seemed to be more questions than answers in the end.
Overall, it was an OK episode that seemed more of an update to the kiddofspeed.com website than a scientific observation on the current wildlife population and well being. Aside from the fact that the wolf population is as large as the control, what about the overall health and genetic well being of the various packs?
I too watched the program, and perhaps I was too tired, but I didn’t seem to notice any of the results from the studies they were doing. They took many samples and I suppose I was expecting to hear about the results by the end of the program. What was the level in the bones of the wolf kill? What were the levels in the zone wolves vs the outer zone wolves?
I loved this show. When will you broadcast this again? PBS Detroit
i missed the show but hope that’s it’s on again.as far as the traps they are foothold not leghold traps.the same type of traps were used on the wolfs they introduced into Yellowstone.they also used simular traps were used to reintrodce otters in IL.