Chernobyl's radioactive trees and the forest fire risk

[Are_grits_groceries]

Much of the 30km exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant is pine forest, and some of it so badly contaminated that a forest fire could create a devastating radioactive smoke cloud.
<snip>
It is happening inside the exclusion zone too. Chernobyl Forestry Enterprise is now planting small new pine stands which it plans to harvest in 80 years' time. But there are serious problems with the rest of Chernobyl's extensive pine plantations.

Pine damages easily. Wind blows it down. Insects infest it. Drought makes brush into perfect tinder which can all too easily catch fire. And these dying radioactive plantations are considered too dangerous and expensive to clear.

If ignited, one expert likens the potential effect to setting off a nuclear bomb in Eastern Europe. Wind could carry radioactive smoke particles large distances, not just in Ukraine, but right across the continent.
<snip>
More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18721292

Chernobyl will haunt us forever.

[E-Z-B]

1. But nucular power is safe.

According to the right-wingnut talking heads.

[1-Old-Man]

2. It seems to me that this article has no other purpose than to frighten people

I do not know if this is true or not but I would take a somewhat informed guess and tell you that there is more radiation coming out of the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants in the United States than would be released if all of those supposedly contaminated trees burned up. We know burning coal releases not only radioactive materials but all manner of other compounds known to be carcinogens, we do not know that that Russian forrest is going to catch fire.

[madokie]

4. Why don't you give us some verifiable numbers to go with those statements

I realize there is some radiation coming out of the smokestacks but lets put a number on that. Otherwise your post has no purpose other than to frighten people.
I seriously doubt that I'll get an answer but if I do I thank you in advance

[chervilant]

5. hmm...

"If ignited, one expert likens the potential effect to setting off a nuclear bomb in Eastern Europe. Wind could carry radioactive smoke particles large distances, not just in Ukraine, but right across the continent."

Sadly, our species continues to 'forget' about our catastrophic mistakes, and little is done to mitigate the consequences. Have you considered that the intent of this article is to solicit inventive ideas for rendering the contaminated areas less prone to wildfire?

I view news items like this as reminders of the dangers of nuclear power. Perhaps if our species had taken heed after Chernobyl, Fukushima would not have happened.

[Gold Metal Flake]

6. "I do not know if this is true or not..."

Jesus fucking Christ.

[1-Old-Man]

8. OK, its true then ...

My point is that there is radioactive material released by ever smokestack from every coal-fired power plant in the country and they have been running for about 100 years. The total released by the coal-powered plants, I very much suspect, is more than all of the radioactive materials every released by the Soviet accident.

Actually if you really wanted to make a comparison I would say that the quantity and toxicity of materials that contaminated a corridor leading from the Hanford Facility in south eastern Washington state down through and across the entire US western states is far greater than Chernoble's release. Rods emerging from the reactors (Located on the edge of the Columbia River), even those with damaged cladding, were dropped directly into shallow uncovered ponds where the water covering them not only evaporated into the air and blew for thousands of miles but also leaked into the river to make their way to the coast.

[MattSh]

7. Ah yes, one (unnamed) expert.

Boy, the British press really has a thing against Ukraine lately. In May, it's don't attend Euro 2012 because of the racism, you might come home in a coffin. Large parts of that was made up out of next to nothing. Now this.

Some facts.

The zone is a lot less dangerous than 26 year ago. Yes, I've been there.

Radioactive Iodine, half-life of 8 days. No longer an issue.
Radioactive Cesium, half-life of around 30 years. So about half of it is no longer radioactive.
Radioactive Strontium, half-life of around 30 years. So about half of it is no longer radioactive.

There were over 100 radioactive elements released into the atmosphere when Chernobyl’s fourth reactor exploded. Most of these were short lived and decayed (reduced in radioactivity) very quickly. Iodine, strontium and caesium were the most dangerous of the elements released, and have half-lives of 8 days, 29 years, and 30 years respectively.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml

So it is an impossibility to have any event occur that is anywhere near as dangerous as the original Chernobyl accident. Unless of course the original accident at the number four reactor or one of the other reactors replicated itself. But that's not likely since the last of the four Chernobyl reactors went offline in 2000.

Now about the probability of forest fires. The largest in the exclusion zone occurred ironically in 1986, effecting 23.36 km2. As a comparison, Somerset Country NJ is 790 km2. So while forest fires certainly can happen, the likelihood of a major environmental disaster is remote indeed. Oh, and that 1992 fire mentioned in the linked BBC article? 5 km2, but only 2.7 km2 of forest. The 2012 Colorado fires? 350 km2. The Chernobyl exclusion zone? 2600 km2


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_County,_New_Jersey

[SidDithers]

9. Facts are good...

Sid