We’ve had 30 years to look at the ecological impacts from Chernobyl. That is more than enough time to assess and make projections, and from what we’ve seen so far the trends in the exclusion zone (popularly described by anti-nukes as a “desolate wasteland”) have been both clear and dramatic. Not only are there animals living there, the adjectives I most often see used to describe wildlife in the zone are ‘thriving’, ‘flourishing’, and ‘proliferating’–including some species that were previously endangered or had not been seen for many years in the area before the disaster. We also know the ecological effects of radiation diminish over time, so if we haven’t detected any serious radiation problems yet, it is unlikely we ever will. If we’re honest, we know what the real threat to Chernobyl wildlife is. It is us. It has already become Europe’s largest de facto wilderness preserve, but that will only persist while radiation levels remain high enough to keep humans at bay. Eventually, the temptation to sweep back in and repopulate the area, and wipe out the natural order, again, will become irresistible for us.
“Just like the article says. Another poster said they do not eat the fish from the sea now. I too (if I ate fish) would not want anything from there or Fukushima”
This has been a real effect from Fukushima. Ocean food consumption in the region has dropped, giving the badly depleted marine populations there a chance to recover. This is not a direct effect from radiation itself, but an indirect effect from human fears about radiation. Sadly, this has not been enough to seriously deter their killing of dolphins, but at least maybe the dolphins have more food–for a while.
"Then there’s this: [naturalsociety link]
Yes, there has been an abundance of insinuation, spin, skew, reinterpretation, and sometimes hysterical or downright fraudulent claims made by the likes of Alex Jones (infowars), Mike Adams (NaturalNews), Enenews and their many repeaters (such as your link here, which was echoing the usual culprits of misinformation), some of which are also purveyors of bunk when it comes to vaccinations, the HIV/AIDS connection, chemtrails, and UFO’s. They are the internet equivalent of tabloids (the ridiculous photoshopped image on your link should have been a clue) usually with junk or fake sources, but when they do base an article on a reinterpretation of a real scientific study, as they do here, you have check what they are saying against the source material, and what the researchers themselves have to say. In this case, here’s the relevant release from MBARI:
And if you zip down to the bottom, you can click on a bar to open out their response to “misleading web stories related to this press release”.
Or here’s the view of another marine biologist who is independent of the study:
So what do you normally think of people who reject legit scientific views in preference to bogus information they get from tabloids, fraudsters, quacks, and hustlers?