Risk of forest fires rising near Chernobyl


7 Responses to “Risk of forest fires rising near Chernobyl”

  1. fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

    The first time around they ended up burying a bunch of seriously dead trees. Is that considered a futile exercise, or impractically expensive, or just a faster way to encourage exiting isotopes to visit the scenic groundwater?

  2. crenquis says:

    Google farber wood ash and you will get plenty of links on the amount of radioactive materials in trees from the atomic bomb tests.  Basically, wood ash has ~10xs the concentration of cs-137/sr-90 that would require disposal as radioactive waste if it came out of a licensed (rad) facility.

  3. brainflakes says:

    But would that release more or less radiation than burning coal does? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry#Radiation_exposure

    • crenquis says:

      But coal releases natural radiation…  ;) 
      Everybody knows that nuke plants shoot out cancer beams (pew pew) but living somewhere like Ramsar, Iran or Guarapari, Brasil has little excess risk.

    • Cowicide says:

      Hmmm… how about solar energy? wind energy? geothermal? tidal?  Why leave all that out of the equation?

  4. Finnagain says:

    Clearly trees cause even more pollution than previously thought!

Leave a Reply