This is going to be boring, but I found it interesting

Tweet

I was reading a post by @LadyDuck about the explosion of wildlife in the exclusion zone at Chernobyl. They have seen certain animal populations bouncing back, and the wolves have increased by a huge number. And then I was reading another article about Chernobyl's wildlife on the net, and I clicked on a linked article about what was wrong with Chernobyl's forests. And that article said that the radiation was slowing down organic decay. In fact, the article quoted someone saying that 15-20 years after the accident, there were still all these trees on the ground that had been felled by the blast. He said they should all have been gone in ten years. That seemed odd to me, so I decided to go look up the rate at which trees decay. And I found a study by a Norwegian scientist who said it depends on what kind of tree it is. Some trees take centuries to decompose. Others might take a hundred years, or if it's a tree that has very little resin in it, it might be as quick as 50 years. Not 10 years. Between 50 years and hundreds of years. And I guess my only point is that lots of news articles contain misinformation. Lots of news articles are biased or badly researched. And to say that trees on the ground means that the radiation is preserving them for excessive periods is utter nonsense. Well, maybe it is. Depending on what kind of trees they are. The article didn't say. Journalists and scientists are like doctors. They might sound like they know what they are talking about, but now and again, you just know that they've missed the real problem and you seek a second opinion. Except that with scientists and journalists, you should always seek a second opinion. http://www.newser.com/story/183798/in-chernobyls-forests-decay-is-terribly-stalled.html