Plants Near Chernobyl Adapt To Contaminated Soil 293
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."
Wasn't this predicted (Score:5, Interesting)
Adapt or die.
Aquired Characteristics in Animal Kingdom first. (Score:0, Interesting)
I distinctly remembered that people born white in desert(ed) climates (think Michigan) would actually adapt in similar ways: their skin turned black, they developed ignorance, their hair got short and kinky, light barrels of trash on fire to keep warm, and line-up at every line of people leading into a government building to assume free handouts.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
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:The kids aren't all right. (Score:3, Interesting)
People are living and farming within 20 miles of the plant and there is a known substantial population of elk, deer, wolf, fox and others in the so-called dead zone and they've been there for years. I'm not saying it's safe or even that it's tolerable but it is happening.
You might know enough to sound a little learned when it comes to reactors but it's nothing that anyone else here couldn't have figured out for themselves in 10 minutes using Google. What you clearly don't know about is the fact that you're dead wrong about Prypiat and it's current ecosystem.
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: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:Mother nature (Score:1, Interesting)
Bees makes honey. We make many, many types of sweeteners -- some merely by collecting and lightly processing (e.g., filtering, cooking), and some through the creation of chemical compounds by our hand (rather than, e.g., enzymes or processes within our bodies) that either become the sweeteners or are applied to other materials to modify them into sweeteners (or change an existing sweetener on a molecular or chemical level. Beavers make fairly significant dams, but they're not great at finding new materials -- even pretty basic stuff like digging up the ground, finding clay, and seeing whether that works isn't in their purview; I'm not holding my breath for them to figure out how to manufacture fiberglass or low-E windows.
Obviously, it's a question of degree (and semantics). I definitely fall on the side of calling many of our inventions artificial and not of nature.
Re:Hmmm that'll do... (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.