I've always been a bit sceptical of these studies of birds (and other rapidly reproducing organisms) in Chernobyl, mainly because these live in a competitive environment in which the damaging effects of radiation would be quickly weeded out by natural selection. So yes, it is credible that they would do "incredibly well", as they (their descendants) are simply moving into the spaces ceded by humans.
Now, trees are different, as they live so long that we are looking still at the generation that received the radiation.
Anyway it's good to see that these researchers are aware of the weaknesses of the NYAS monograph, which cannot be ignored.
Well Caldicott, etc. have a habit of ignoring how poor the NYAS monograph is! HA! Funny how that works.
It's funny too because Mousseau was invited to Caldicott's last symposium as was Yablakov, the Russian guy behind that monograph.
I think Mousseau/Moller's work is about as good as one can due considering the variables and uncertainties. But I read somewhere that Moller got into some sort of trouble unrelated to his Chernobyl work. I can't recall the details.
I've always been a bit sceptical of these studies of birds (and other rapidly reproducing organisms) in Chernobyl, mainly because these live in a competitive environment in which the damaging effects of radiation would be quickly weeded out by natural selection. So yes, it is credible that they would do "incredibly well", as they (their descendants) are simply moving into the spaces ceded by humans.
ReplyDeleteNow, trees are different, as they live so long that we are looking still at the generation that received the radiation.
Anyway it's good to see that these researchers are aware of the weaknesses of the NYAS monograph, which cannot be ignored.
Well Caldicott, etc. have a habit of ignoring how poor the NYAS monograph is! HA! Funny how that works.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny too because Mousseau was invited to Caldicott's last symposium as was Yablakov, the Russian guy behind that monograph.
I think Mousseau/Moller's work is about as good as one can due considering the variables and uncertainties. But I read somewhere that Moller got into some sort of trouble unrelated to his Chernobyl work. I can't recall the details.
This was probably it:
ReplyDeletehttp://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2007/01/25/unpacking-natures-where-are-th/
Here is another version.
ReplyDeleteThanks. "Who knows?", not me. Maybe he's taking steps today to prevent that sort of thing from happening again.
ReplyDelete