Chernobyl: the nature she already takes her rights?

Humanitarian catastrophes (including resource wars and conflicts), natural, climate and industrial (except nuclear or oil forum fossil and nuclear energy). Pollution of the sea and oceans.
User avatar
gildas
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 879
Registration: 05/03/10, 23:59
x 173

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by gildas » 30/12/18, 14:13

0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by Exnihiloest » 30/12/18, 19:05

izentrop wrote:These poor beasts did not care about radiation, they will lose their dear freedom to serve a master and eat croquettes all year.
Quelle vie de chien Image

You confuse dogs and wolves, read La Fontaine again:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Loup_et_le_Chien
0 x
User avatar
thibr
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 723
Registration: 07/01/18, 09:19
x 269

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by thibr » 30/12/18, 21:03

Image
it's not the same beast : Mrgreen:
1 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by Ahmed » 30/12/18, 21:11

The reverse transformation of the domestication of the wolf can be observed: it goes through a selection phase which eliminates those who fail to restore their primitive functions (notably predation) which dogs are often deprived of or which survive in an altered way.
On the other hand, a phenotypic homogenization manifests itself (clearly all the wild dogs resemble each other, within a given ecological system).
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by izentrop » 13/01/19, 23:13

In the subject of glyphosate:
Moindreffor wrote:you were talking about Chernobyl, it is one of the most beautiful animal reserves today, biodiversity returned and fauna in number, on the other hand no discovery of mutant animals but indeed animals with an abnormally high level of radioactivity, and therefore it goes against what all the specialists thought
Mutants, there are still, but in general they do not survive. https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2016/04/2 ... 72770.html

Viable mutant insects:
Image Gendarmes, it seems to me
What are the long-term effects of radiation on animal or plant species in contaminated areas? Their genomes have been changed. Will the mutants persist?

Well, in the long run, no. The fact is that a number of background mutations occur constantly in all species, even in uncontaminated areas, although much less rapidly than in areas contaminated by nuclear accidents. Most genetic variants have therefore already been tried. The vast majority are neutral or slightly deleterious. If a mutation had an advantage to offer, it would already be present in the population.

The long-term effect of nuclear accidents on biodiversity is therefore… zero?

Yes, it's true. Over time, we expect populations to return to normal after the mutagen is gone. Radionucleotides decay, hot sites eventually cool, mutations become less frequent, and healthy animal and plant populations recolonize sites. So the ante genetic status quo returns - except for mutations that permanently improve physical condition, but it's very rare. https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-accidents ... a-19098683
0 x
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by Moindreffor » 14/01/19, 11:58

izentrop wrote:In the subject of glyphosate:
Moindreffor wrote:you were talking about Chernobyl, it is one of the most beautiful animal reserves today, biodiversity returned and fauna in number, on the other hand no discovery of mutant animals but indeed animals with an abnormally high level of radioactivity, and therefore it goes against what all the specialists thought
Mutants, there are still, but in general they do not survive. https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2016/04/2 ... 72770.html

Viable mutant insects:
Image Gendarmes, it seems to me
What are the long-term effects of radiation on animal or plant species in contaminated areas? Their genomes have been changed. Will the mutants persist?

Well, in the long run, no. The fact is that a number of background mutations occur constantly in all species, even in uncontaminated areas, although much less rapidly than in areas contaminated by nuclear accidents. Most genetic variants have therefore already been tried. The vast majority are neutral or slightly deleterious. If a mutation had an advantage to offer, it would already be present in the population.

The long-term effect of nuclear accidents on biodiversity is therefore… zero?

Yes, it's true. Over time, we expect populations to return to normal after the mutagen is gone. Radionucleotides decay, hot sites eventually cool, mutations become less frequent, and healthy animal and plant populations recolonize sites. So the ante genetic status quo returns - except for mutations that permanently improve physical condition, but it's very rare. https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-accidents ... a-19098683

beware insects are naturally subject to mutations, after viable does he want to reproduce or just come into the world and reach adult size, I made guppy (fish that mutates a lot) we have viable mutants, their luck to reproduce are null if the man does not interfere ...
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by izentrop » 14/01/19, 14:22

You're right Moindreffort, the meaning of words is important.
I reacted on "no discovery of mutant animals" ... which actually reproduced :)
0 x
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by Moindreffor » 14/01/19, 20:02

izentrop wrote:You're right Moindreffort, the meaning of words is important.
I reacted on "no discovery of mutant animals" ... which actually reproduced :)

I had seen a report and it seems to me that they captured small rodents and that by genetic analysis, they could know the "family tree" and the number of generations.
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by izentrop » 14/01/19, 22:18

Certainly the mitochondrial DNA which also made it possible to go back to the common African origin of man :)
0 x
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by Moindreffor » 15/01/19, 08:04

izentrop wrote:Certainly the mitochondrial DNA which also made it possible to go back to the common African origin of man :)

Nagasaki and Hiroshima are prosperous cities now and yet ...
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)

Back to "humanitarian disasters, natural, climatic and industrial"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 101 guests