Plants Near Chernobyl Adapt To Contaminated Soil 293
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the it's-what-plants-crave dept.
from the it's-what-plants-crave dept.
lbalbalba writes "In April 1986, a nuclear reactor at the Chernobyl power plant in Ukraine exploded and sent radioactive particles flying through the air, infiltrating the surrounding soil. Despite the colossal disaster, some plants in the area seem to have adapted well, flourishing in the contaminated soil."
Obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
Feed me, Seymour!
Re:Obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
Kind of what I was thinking, but not quite. I was suddenly hearing the song, "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" in my head....
Re: (Score:2)
http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Tomacco [wikia.com]
Wasn't this predicted (Score:5, Interesting)
Adapt or die.
Re:Wasn't this predicted (Score:4, Funny)
Obviously He has made the plants smart enough to make that selection. Intelligent Design and all, you know?
(Ok, going to get modded troll for this or burn in hell.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ALL HAIL HIS HOLY NOODLELYNESS!!!!
And some more stuff to get past the the "CAPS is yelling" filter. This should about do it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, and also I remember the number of articles on slashdot about how wildlife was thriving there, which were then totally debunked.
Then, when real research was carried out, wild animals turned out to have shorter lifespans, all kinds of genetic diseases, have smaller litter, more defective offspring and generally be much less healthy than elsewhere.
If I had to bet, I'd bet this new "research" has about as much validity as the brouhaha about the Przhevalsky horses in 2002.
But hey, the sexy chick on the mot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not crazy, you're uninformed and quite rude.
Nobody has said the area will become lifeless for generations, only mostly uninhabited by people for generations. That is still the case, and isn't changing for the foreseeable future.
The rest of your comment is just rehashing the debunked theorizing from the early years about some miraculous wildlife recovery, probably colored with your own expectations.
The expectations of everyone else with a modicum of knowledge about the consequences of radiation -- for a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really.
The predictions used to involve everything bigger than rats keeling over and nothing but the most hardy stuff surviving in the contaminated areas.
They've gradually changed to reflect reality and the nature of radioactive decay.
Feel free to forget that though and pretend you always expected exactly what happened.
As it turned out an area contaminated by radation appears to be far more hospitable to wildlife than an area heavily populated by humans.
And humans do live in the exclusion zone.
Not many b
Re: (Score:2)
Not... exactly, but in a way, yes. For a more elaborate explanation, read the manga version of Nausicaa. Or just read it because it rules, like the movie does. :)
Re: (Score:3)
In my opinion, yes, far better (although you have to account for the fact that it was made in 1984 so it's not as slickly made as Spirited Away).
The Nausicaä anime still only covers a small part of the full story that you get with all 7 manga books though, and it does give the impression of not quite being finished. And there's *that* scene at the end that Miyazaki was never happy with.
It's worth putting up with the English dub for at least one viewing though, because Yupa is voiced by Patrick Stewart
It's because (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Duh, they've been fertilized with Miracle-Glo!
Re:It's because (Score:5, Funny)
And heavy watering.
Nice one (Score:3, Funny)
A rod of applause to you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
or..
in Soviet Russia nuclear plant grows
Hmmm that'll do... (Score:5, Funny)
Meanwhile the remainder of their body was burnt to a crisp by the radioactivity. Masks, goggles and gloves? This experiment was presumably organised by someone from the Simpsons... (My eyes - the goggles do nothing!)
Re:Hmmm that'll do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably the point is not so much to shield radiation, but to reduce / prevent direct contact, or (worse) ingestion of radioactive material. Depending on conditions & duration of the job, masks, goggles & gloves may just be adequate.
Re:Hmmm that'll do... (Score:5, Funny)
Probably the point is not so much to shield radiation, but to reduce / prevent direct contact, or (worse) ingestion of radioactive material. Depending on conditions & duration of the job, masks, goggles & gloves may just be adequate.
Right. The key is to limit exposure to the precise amount where you don't die, but do gain superpowers.
These scientists know what they're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll remember that. It seems that 3M filter-lite paint masks, medical gloves, and welders glasses are okie!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Depends on the type and strength of radiation present. If it's mostly alpha particles then it will be blocked by your skin, but they can still penetrate mucous membranes (like in the nose and around the eyes) or be inhaled and absorbed through the lungs.
There is also the inverse square law, standing several feet away from a lightly radioactive source is going to be less hazardous than handling it with your bare hands. Hence the gloves.
Re:Hmmm that'll do... (Score:4, Informative)
Radiation isn't the only problem. Uranium is toxic even without its radioactivity. I suspect that there are a bunch of other byproducts of a reactor explosion that are just as bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Uranium actually acts like estrogen in small doses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are positively glowing!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, the typical reaction to to the word "radioactivity."
Most areas around Chernobyl are pretty harmlessly radioactive unless you a) spend a long time there or b) get some of the radioactive stuff on or in you and it sticks with you for an extended period of time.
Cyanide is pretty deadly stuff too, but only if you ingest it.
Re: (Score:2)
>> harmlessly radioactive unless you a) spend a long time there or b) get some of the radioactive stuff on or in you and it sticks with you for an extended period of time.
You mean like, oh, I don't know, a plant, maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Although plants have quite a few advantages over us where it comes to tolerating radiation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you think would happen to you if you stayed outside in direct sunlight day after day, for your entire lifetime? Plants are heartier than humans, probably because they tend to be far simpler. I'm sure a bio guy could tell you more accurate and precise reasons, but you seem to not want that...
Re: (Score:2)
On the acute side:
* Plants have a nice, thick, outer layer (compared to your skin) which blocks a lot of potentialy dangerous radition.
* Every single cell in a plant has a cellulose based cell wall which can soak up a lot of damage compared to your cells.
* Plants don't move nearly as much stuff around inside them, ensuring dangerous particles mostly stay on the outside.
On the chronic side:
* Plants don't have nearly as many specialized, quickly dividing, cells that a stray alpha particle can turn into cancer
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, the typical reaction to to the word "radioactivity."
For good reason too - we can not hear ,smell or taste radiation and its effects will last a life time.
any exposure to radiation causes harm it is just a case of how well are bodies able to tolerate it.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/5635/Radiation-Radiation-health.html [jrank.org]
Most areas around Chernobyl are pretty harmlessly radioactive unless you a) spend a long time there or b) get some of the radioactive stuff on or in you and it sticks with you for an extended period of time...................
I will have to take your word for it. Never having been to the areas that surround the Chernobyl power plant, I would however think there must be a reason why the cities of Chernobyl and Prypiat were abandoned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have a strange definition of harmless.
To me "it's OK if you were a protecive suit, mask and gloves, speed through without stopping and get hosed off at the other end" sounds more like a pretty good definition of a hazardous environment, but maybe I'm just a wuss.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmmm that'll do... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, they would do something.
Primarily they would prevent the accidental ingestion of alpha particle emitters. Shit like polonium like the Russians used on that reporter a few years ago. They're normally harmless, your dead skin cells will stop the alpha particles, but [deity] help you if you ingest them.
The background radiation levels are easily measurable and it's pretty easy to calculate how long someone should reasonable stay in an area unprotected. I would wager that these scientists actually know something about science, and were mainly concerned with ingesting alpha emitters, not absorbing gamma rays.
Re: (Score:2)
"Shit like polonium like the Russians used on that reporter a few years ago. "
Russians? Every smoker does it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco [wikipedia.org]
Radioactive carcinogens
In addition to chemical, nonradioactive carcinogens, tobacco and tobacco smoke contain small amounts of lead-210 (210Pb) and polonium-210 (210Po) both of which are radioactive carcinogens. The presence of polonium-210 in mainstream cigarette smoke has been experimentally measured at levels of 0.0263–0.036 pCi (0.97
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most gamma radiation passes through your body without ever interacting.
These scientists were worried about radioactive contamination, not acute radiation exposure. The defense against contamination is to keep the emitters from getting inside your body.
And in a related story... (Score:2)
...the cockroach population is also thriving.
Great... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Triffids [wikipedia.org]
Cool, but old news. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, evolution is alive and well. A species of bacteria evolved in the early 70s that can digest nylon [wikipedia.org].
I think this news is a nice reality check on that annoying but vocal cadre of environmentalists that are always predicting some kind of terrible apocalypse within the next couple of decades. Global cooling [wikipedia.org], for example. Not to mention a nifty "myth busted" moment for that old Hollywood trope of a post-nuclear wasteland.
I'm definitely not saying we shouldn't take care of our environment, by the way, and I'm certainly not an AGW denialist. The specific way things are now matters a lot to us fickle and fragile humans. If the sea level rises by another yard, the crabs will just move. The Venetians are the ones that would be screwed.
I'm just saying that nature is more resilient than people usually imagine.
Yep, evolution can be really fast (Score:2, Informative)
Under the right circumstances, evolution can be quite fast. The geological history of the earth shows many massive die-offs followed by a tremendous flowering of new life forms. If there is an ecological niche available, something will adapt/evolve to fill it.
Naturally, simpler life forms evolve faster than complex ones. Germs evolve in months. Humans evolve in tens of millennia. Plants are somewhere between the two.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Better let the polar bears know, because it only took them 5-10k years to adapt. That's pretty quick in geologic time.
Re: (Score:2)
you might want to ask people from ukraine and belarus how fascinating it is to experience natural, that is, artificial selection in first person.
And TFS speaks about surrounding soil: the explosion affected quite a large area. Strangely enough no alarm was raised until at least the day after the cloud came to our area (NE italy). Living few kilometers from the iron curtain in a (then) densely militarized zone one would have assumed that NBC monitoring was done in order to prevent attacks from the (then) bad
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, did you even read the article you linked?
Re:Cool, but old news. (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention a nifty "myth busted" moment for that old Hollywood trope of a post-nuclear wasteland.
The explosion at Chernobyl wasn't a nuclear one, it was steam (due to a massive reactor power spike thanks to the skillful removal of pretty much all possible safety procedures in an already sub-optimal reactor design) that blew open the core and scattered radioactive material over the landscape and into the atmosphere thanks to the lack of a containment vessel. The Hollywood trope of the post-nuclear landscape typically involves the detonation of several hundred megatons of nuclear bombs and, as near as we can tell, is pretty accurate; Chernobyl isn't really comparable to a nuke in either the degree of the explosion or in the amount of radioactive fallout. /nitpick
Re:Cool, but old news. (Score:4, Insightful)
My understanding was that the point of this article was that this was not evolution, or at most an evolutionary switch-on of a feature that evolved long ago.
When plants reach for the light, it's not because they are evolving into a new organism on the spot. Rather, they have long ago evolved to dynamically adapt to lighting conditions. What TFA is proposing is that plants dynamically adapt to ionizing radiation as well, and they have had that capability for some time, it's just that we haven't been in a position to observe it.
As to the rest of your comment: If you think "environmentalists are always predicting some kind of terrible apocalypse withing the next couple of decades" and cite "global cooling" as an example - maybe you're not an AGW denialist, but you have apparently picked up some of their rhetoric style.
BBC, wtf? (Score:2)
I usually consider the BBC to be both a reliable source of info, and capable of quality reporting. I don't doubt the info in this case, but was the article written by monkeys? Or has the distinction between a paragraph and a sentence been deprecated?
I was under the impression that the English are generally more literate than your average North American, seeing as they invented the language and all. But this article is awful.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is how the BBC reports online - single sentence 'paragraphs' under headings that are closer to where you'd really divide paragraphs. I'm not sure why you're so outraged, news reports in general use short paragraphs and fragments. The NY Times, for example, frequently uses single sentence paragraphs.
It makes articles easier to skim and ensures a consistent style between journalists, I'm not sure what your issue with it is.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the single sentence paragraphs, but also the near total lack of flow to the text. It reads like bullet points scraped off a powerpoint. I hadn't noticed how short the NYTimes paragraphs were, mostly because there's still some craft to the prose. The NYT still reads like it was meant to be read by literate humans, not parsed by a computer.
To each his own, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Day Of The Triffids! (Score:5, Funny)
Scientist: Wow! They're thriving!
Plant: (Yeah, that's right b*tch. You better believe it.)
*weeks pass*
Plant: (Eat me. Go on, you know you want to? Look at my lovely leaves, my beautiful drupes. I'm tasty. You KNOW I am. Eat me, human.)
Scientist: Hmmmm...I wonder...
Plant: (That's right, baby. Oh yesssss...verrry good.)
Re: (Score:2)
Mother nature (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mother nature (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazing how mother nature always seems to adapt to whatever man throws at it.
And people still continue to say we can blow up the world. Earth took hits from
asteroids, wiped out the critters, adapted, evolved and moved on. Same thing with
any pollution.
More like Nature adapting to Nature.
Why are humans always separated out from natural things? Humans are animals just like ants and bees. Bees create honey, something that would not exist without bees creating it, and it's considered natural. Yet humans create things like "High Fructose Corn Syrup" and it's not considered natural.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was never a question of nature or the earth managing in spite of what we do. Nothing we can do, except possibly detonating every nuclear weapon in the world's arsenal (and maybe not even then) will be sufficient to completely wipe out all life on the planet. The real question is whether or not whatever we do or fail to do will make the planet uninhabitable for us humans. Nature may be resilient, but the human species, having existed for only 100,000 or so years in its present form, a mere blink of an ey
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is not life in general after we blow up the world. The problem is human life after we blow up the world. Life in general will go on on this planet for ever, until the planet is consumed by the Sun. The problem is us.
Darwin +1 Creationism +0 (Score:3, Informative)
You are mistaken (Score:5, Informative)
Read their method.
They first observe that plants start to spontaneously grow again in contamination sites despite the high radioactivity. Then they brought in seeds from uncontaminated origin. One batch goes to the contamination site, and another batch (the controlled group) goes to a decontaminated area near the site. Seeds grow fine in both batches, showing that seeds from uncontaminated origin is able to survive the radioactivity in the very first generation. The study is about the mechanism how plants naturally resist radioactivity. No evolution is taking place here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he's separating them, just saying that they don't have to conflict with each other. The 'earth was created 6000 years ago' isn't the only creationist belief[1] out there, it's just that those nutjobs are the loudest and get upset every time a fossil is discovered. A more reasonable belief would be that God set the initial parameters of the universe to make things happen the way they do, with evolution of the species being the eventual result. I don't believe it myself but it sounds a lot more
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it more reasonable? - It has exactly the same amount of evidence going for it as young Earth creationists have for their blind faith. The only reasonable answer to the question is "I don't know".
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it more reasonable? - It has exactly the same amount of evidence going for it as young Earth creationists have for their blind faith. The only reasonable answer to the question is "I don't know".
No, because there's so much scientific evidence that says the young Earth creationists are wrong that they're as ignored as the perpetual motion idiots. It's much harder to say that the big bang was or wasn't divinely directed, because we don't have enough evidence yet to prove that it exploded one way or another, let alone if it followed divine guidance.
The nice thing about a "directed big bang" theory is that the rational people can easily accept that everything else now happens according to natural rule
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it more reasonable? - It has exactly the same amount of evidence going for it as young Earth creationists have for their blind faith. The only reasonable answer to the question is "I don't know".
It's more reasonable because it doesn't fly directly in the face of what we know about the universe.
All the current scientific evidence points to the universe being somewhat more than 6000 years old, so to believe that it is 6000 years old and created in exactly the way that Genesis tells is unreasonable. 'more reasonable' still leaves a lot of room of course :)
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, Creationism = Big Bang Theory.
I would suggest splitting Creationism into two parts
1) Initial creation
2) Flora, Fauna, etc created as they are today
The first part can fit nicely into the theory of Evolution - belief dependent of course
One of the early pioneers of the Big Bang theory was also a Catholic Priest. Georges_Lemaitre [wikipedia.org]
And before someone else brings it up there is also 'Intelligent Design'. However I can't speak for that as I'm not overly familiar with the tenants of its proponents and am not in the mood for a flamewar :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> By that logic, Creationism = Big Bang Theory
Only if we adopt a narrow perspective.
Creating the universe = creating all that is, time included, physical constants included. An eternal universe can be object of a creator. The big bang is just a theory on how big celestial masses move around. A complex fascinating maybe wrong theory, I don't want to downplay the work of scientists, but that doesn't give anybody a free pass in making wrong logical assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, Creationism is usually quoted with the Earth's actual age as around 6000 years, give or take a begat or two.
This isn't the same as Quantum Theory and the Special Theory of Relativity, where we can use one in some circumstances, the other in some circumstances, and just pretend they don't agree with other yet work. A closer analog would be to use Quantum Theory for some circumstances, and a Ouija board for others. (Not to offend, but the scientific evidence for both Ouija and religion is abou
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Religion is about accepting that a group of "facts" (bible) is right with no physical proof, and the leadership objects when someone doubts or questions the accuracy of the "facts".
Beware of confusing the word "religion" with a specific religion that you don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact the Genesis said "the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being".
Since "life" in the bible does not refer simply to a heart beating, see "the book of life", I think the passage means, for believers, that man have an earthly origin plus something (divine/spiritual) instilled by God.
Does not contradict Darwin's theories. It contradicts those who use Darwin as propaganda to theorize a mechanic godless wor
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the text reads "living soul". The word being translated soul is "nephesh", which according to my limited knowledge of Hebrew implies something a lot more complex than any single celled life, but would at least have to have been capable of breathing as we know of it. You say that the Bible does not contradict evolution. I once believed that too, but I was mistaken. I do not dispute Microevolution, but Macroevolution is clearly in opposition to the Bible.
One point is that man, as well as all creatur
The kids aren't all right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Coupl'a things -
1) Chernobyl is not over, and not contained. The "sarcophagus" was temporary at best, is crumbling now, and it's permanent replacement has been beset by budgetary, engineering and political issues that seem irresolvable.
2) Apart from 6' trout and 10' catfish, wildlife around Chernobyl and Pripyat is absolutely not doing well. Excepting a few migratory songbirds, the place is eerily silent.
3) But it's OK, because a few plant species turn out to be radiation-tolerant?
No, not OK. I'm not against nuclear power wholesale, but maybe we should be taking a long, hard look at pebble-bed, 4S and thorium reactors?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The kids aren't all right. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All nature sounds eerily silent to people accustomed to the noise of city living. There is no hum of engines or transformers, no sirens, no screeching tires, no TV or radio. It is shocking like plunging into cold water when you step out of your car and into an environment where noise is the exception rather than the rule. At first, it sounds dead. As you begin to grow accustomed to it, however, you start hearing wind in the trees or grass, birds, etc. It sounds "desolate" because the sounds are different in
No predator(s)? (Score:4, Interesting)
Could it be that whatever fauna that survived, adapted and/or now thrives might do so under conditions perhaps harsher due to radiation, yet plausibly improved by a potentially reduced presence of any predator species, whom may not have fared as well, or may have been displaced?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Could it be that whatever fauna that survived, adapted and/or now thrives might do so under conditions perhaps harsher due to radiation, yet plausibly improved by a potentially reduced presence of any predator species, whom may not have fared as well, or may have been displaced?
The deer got superpowers, but the bears glow in the dark
The plants are thriving (Score:5, Funny)
They were all active that day, talking about the weather, gossiping, and walking around. And right before the scientists and researchers drove in to the site, one of the plants yelled "CAR!" and they all stood still.
The Far Side? (Score:2)
Referencing this Far Side comic?
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://akbar.marlboro.edu/~jsheehy/FarSideCownCar.gif&imgrefurl=http://forums.bicycling.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/632104717/m/5131031146/p/2&usg=__YEficHbVcpMbSLHsx3z_IqK4I1w=&h=428&w=350&sz=37&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=6ED9ukKliivcdM:&tbnh=166&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3DThe%2BFar%2BSide%2Btalking%2Bcows%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DD3c%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozill [google.com]
Masks Goggles and Gloves? (Score:2)
What (Score:3, Insightful)
Plants are very primitive compared to animals, and localized mutations of their cells have nearly no effect on them, so why would they be significantly affected by radioactive contamination in the first place? The whole problem with radioactive contamination and plants is that they can accumulate radioactive isotopes over their lifetime and become dangerous for humans and animals to consume.
Re:Of course life adapts. (Score:5, Insightful)
"And Humans will adapt by dying out."
The many survivors of atomic testing and nuclear attack suggest otherwise.
Re:Of course life adapts. (Score:4, Interesting)
"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection"
Nietzsche, Darwin, what's the difference.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
ok let's cut your legs, it will make you stronger
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of things which, while non-fatal, weaken one.
Re:Plant vs. Human evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
However, as it happens, the biochemical adaptations required to survive severe dessication or extreme heat(which, like radiation, pretty much go all bull-in-a-china-shop on your genome and metabolically important molecules) happen to, in a number of cases, be pretty useful in radiation resistance as well. Bacteria like d. radiodurans, t. gammatolerans, and organisms like tardigrades are extremely radiation resistant; but as a side effect of their adaptations to heat and dessication.
Given the survival value, particularly for seeds, of being able to survive hard times and then germinate, or aggressively seize territory(and light) left open by forest fires, it wouldn't be a total surprise if plants had picked up a few adaptations in the same vein...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not entirely true that there are no inhabited areas with high natural background levels. In fact much higher than the global average. These include Ramsar in Iran, Guarapari in Brazil, Kerala in India and others. The interesting thing is that epidemiological studies do not find adverse health effects on humans. Which certainly raises questions about the linear no threshold model which holds that there is no safe lower limit.
High Levels of Natural Radiation in Ramsar, Iran [google.com.au]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Did all the plants die off after Chernobyl?
In some areas, yes. See Red Forest [wikipedia.org]. But that doesn't stop plants and animals from making their way back in, however slowly. Sounds like an extreme environment ripe for adaptation/evolution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As the earlier commenter pointed out, the plants might be poisonous as crops if they aggregate the radioactive materials, so maybe the health of the plants is nothing to be overjoyed about. However, one of the points is that the forests around Chernobyl never died off. There wasn't a period when the area around the reactor completely died. The plants didn't "adapt" to the radiation; they were already adapted to tolerate quite a bit of it.
Re: (Score:2)
and how does what you say relate in anyway to:
1) The story?
2) The GPP troll?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you played any of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games? Unlike Fallout 3, they're more towards the FPS end of the spectrum rather than RPG, but they're also a lot more realistic than the wacky 50s sci-fi feel of the Fallout games and a hell of a lot more bleak. GSC Game World is based in Kiev and they've made multiple trips into the exclusion zone, the maps and the layout of places like Pripyat and the entire Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant are very faithfully reproduced in-game, they did an amazing job.
http://3.bp. [blogspot.com]