Name: Chernobyl ‘Exclusion Zone’ Radiation Doses Reanalyzed
Brand: scientificamerican.com
SKU: scientificamerican-com-13
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Chernobyl &lsquo;Exclusion Zone&rsquo; Radiation Doses Reanalyzed

preview

More than 30 years after the Chernobyl nuclear plant's meltdown, an 18-mile radius around the site remains almost entirely devoid of human activity—. But scientists disagree over lingering radiation's effects on animal populations in this region, called the Exclusion Zone. A new analysis, based on estimating the actual doses animals receive in various parts of the zone, supports the hypothesis that areas with the most radiation have the fewest mammals.“The effects we saw are consistent with conventional wisdom about radiation,” says University of South Carolina biologist Timothy Mousseau, co-author of the new study . “What's surprising is that it took this long to start looking at this in a rigorous, comprehensive way.”The paper reanalyzed data collected in 2009. At that time the same researchers used snow tracks to estimate the abundance of 12 mammal species, from mice to horses to wild boars, at 161 sites across 300 square miles in the Exclusion Zone. They found fewer mammals in areas with higher background radiation. Two subsequent studies, however, found no significant correlation between radiation levels and mammal abundance. But Mousseau and his colleagues say all three studies analyzed radiation exposure too simplistically.The previous studies relied solely on measurements of ambient radiation. For their reanalysis, the researchers used their original mammal counts—but they estimated the total radiation doses those animals would likely receive over their lifetimes, combining data about each species (including range size, diet and life span) with radiation levels based on soil samples and calculations about how the animals encounter radioactive molecules.Again, they found that locations calculated as more radioactive had fewer mammals. Many past studies have linked radiation exposure at those estimated levels to deleterious genetic, physiological and reproductive effects, Mousseau says.“This work is very important and is well done,” says Carmel Mothersill, a radiobiologist at McMaster University in Ontario, who was not involved in the study. “My own lab has used this approach to reanalyze data from as well as Chernobyl, and it gives a much more meaningful relation between radiation exposure and risk of harm.”But according to University of Georgia wildlife ecologist James Beasley, a co-author of past conflicting studies, the paper suffers from “critical flaws”—primarily in how the authors estimated animal abundance. Their original measurement locations, he says, were not spaced appropriately or extensively enough to draw conclusions about the entire area.Karine Beaugelin-Seiller, study lead author and a radioecologist at the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety in France, agrees that uncertainty remains. Yet, she says, the study provides a more accurate way to establish the connection between radiation exposure and effects, ideally guiding future research.This article was originally published with the title "Chernobyl's Legacy" in Scientific American 323, 6, 18-19 (December 2020)doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1220-18In the storeScientific American Discover world-changing science. Explore our digital archive back to 1845, including articles by more than 150 Nobel Prize winners.Support science journalism.Thanks for reading Scientific American. Knowledge awaits.Already a subscriber? Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or to continue.Continue reading with a Scientific American subscription.You may cancel at any time.

More than 30 years after the Chernobyl nuclear plant's meltdown, an 18-mile radius around the site remains almost entirely devoid of human activity—. But scientists disagree over lingering radiation's effects on animal populations in this region, called the Exclusion Zone. A new analysis, based on estimating the actual doses animals receive in various parts of the zone, supports the hypothesis that areas with the most radiation have the fewest mammals.“The effects we saw are consistent with conventional wisdom about radiation,” says University of South Carolina biologist Timothy Mousseau,...

public

Rachel Nuwer

Awesome discoveries. Expert insights. Science that shapes the world.

scientificamerican.com

Credible

Speculation

Anecdotal Evidence

Generalization

Stacking the Deck

Appeal to Authority

Straw Man

Slippery Slope

Emotional Appeal

Red Herring

False Dilemma

Illogical

Moral Equivalency

Ad Hominem

Correlation w/o Causation

Semantics

Begging the Question

Faulty Analogy

Non Sequitur

Bandwagon

Dogmatism

Failing Occam's Razor

Biased

Pure Opinion

Hit Piece

Racial Bias

National Bias

Religious Bias

Financial Incentive

Political Agenda

Gender Bias

Misused Image/Video

Study Misinterpreted

Mistake

Misused Term

Science Misrepresented

Factual Error

Satire

Surface Level

Lack of Reliable Sources

Sensational

Not Credible

Investigative

Balanced

Well Sourced

Great Context

sports

entertainment

U.S.

international

business

technology

science

culture

politics

media

health

Chernobyl ‘Exclusion Zone’ Radiation Doses Reanalyzed

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS

Chernobyl &lsquo;Exclusion Zone&rsquo; Radiation Doses Reanalyzed

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS

Chernobyl ‘Exclusion Zone’ Radiation Doses Reanalyzed