Okay, this is a spooky thought: what if there was a radioactive wasteland too toxic for humans to live in but that animals had adapted to? Not only were they able to live there, but some species were thriving because man was no longer interfering with their environment?
Sound like the plot of a science fiction book? Might make a good one, but it’s actually based on fact. The place? Chernobyl.
Chernobyl fascinates me. I think because it scares me so much. It was just an ordinary day that went horribly wrong and left that part of Russia uninhabitable for what? Centuries? More?
I’ve always wondered what happened to the animals there. I’m sure like the people that were affected most died soon after the reactor exploded that fateful April day in 1986. But how did it impact the rest of the ecosystem in the area?
About a year ago I watched a documentary about farmers who chose to still live near Chernobyl. Just as they always had. It was fascinating to watch this old couple go down to the river every morning to fill buckets with water that they’d use for their cooking and such. They talked about their life since the disaster, how they coped, and people who had died from health-related complications due to the fallout. They briefly mentioned the wildlife, how some species were noticeably more impacted than others, but how in general not much had changed. Save for a sense of quiet since the nearby city was now deserted.
The other day I happened to spy an article on the BBC News website about the exclusion zone around Chernobyl and a debate about whether it’s a “wildlife haven.” Apparently Robert Baker, a professor from Texas Tech University, co-authored a paper that was published in the American Scientist magazine. He suggested the plants and animals inside the exclusion zone were “better off” than those outside it.
“The elimination of human activities such as farming, ranching, hunting and logging are the greatest benefits. It can be said that the world’s worst nuclear power plant disaster is not as destructive to wildlife populations as are normal human activities.” Professor Robert Baker, Texas Tech University, from “Chernobyl ‘Not a Wildlife Haven’” by BBC Reporter Mark Kinver
Apparently Baker based his statement on observations he made about the population of barn swallows in the area. Since then there’s been another study done which indicated that, no, barn swallows are not thriving, that in fact their numbers had declined, and Chernobyl was in no way a wildlife haven where rare species were thriving. (As Baker had suggested not just about barn swallows but some other critters too.)
Whether Chernobyl’s a wildlife haven or not, at least wildlife is still living there. Somehow they’ve adapted. To me that’s incredible. I would have thought that was impossible. Thankfully it’s not.
Another April Disaster That Affected Pets: The Titanic
Related Article
What Do Pets Know That We Don’t?
Other Articles About Russia
The Tartar and the Holy Men: A True Story
Different Countries Have Different Criteria for Adoption
Russian Police Department Gets “Female Touch”