Why is Chernobyl unfit for human habitation for the next 3-20 thousand years, yet teeming with wildlife?

the radiation will still give you cancer.
I am guessing the same goes for the wild life, too.

I don’t know enough about it, but recently read some interesting stuff about mushrooms.

Wildlife do not sue when they get cancer or their progeny have birth defects.

Also, most wildlife won’t have natural lifespans measured in decades. I don’t know about all of the larger animals, but the smaller ones are generally lucky to live even ten years. The high levels of radiation may lead to more mutations leading to birth defects, but cancer is (generally) a long-life disease. That is, it takes a while to acquire it, and then it takes a while to kill.

Interesting question. It will be interesting to observe any mutations in the wildlife.

Radiation is mutagenic, so it changes the parent and then the offspring as well, if I remember the science correctly. It doesn’t only cause cancer, it causes genetic changes.

Hopefully, someone who knows more about it can comment on what I wrote.

As long as animals can make it to reproducing age the species has a good shot of continuing. Humans have to wait about 13 years, and in our culture, and Russia would be similar, we don’t encourage parenting until 20+ years. So, in 20 years a lot can go wrong. Thyroid dysfunction, cancers, ovulation cessation, and even death. Most animals are fertile in less than two years. For some it’s days or weeks into their life.

1: Animals don’t read “keep out! authorized personnel only!” signs.
2. Most wildlife, unlike humans, probably won’t live long enough to really develop cancer.
3. Most wildlife with birth defects won’t live long enough to be noticed by us or to pass those defects on.

It is in our food here in Norway. http://www.rferl.org/fullinfographics/infographics/chernobyls-reindeer/27575578.html

http://barentsobserver.com/en/nature/2014/10/norways-radioactive-reindeer-08-10

Rudolf makes so much more sense now.

Radiation isn’t good for wildlife but while there may be more malformed and unhealthy animals you don’t see them because nature kills them off pretty quickly. This would not be acceptable in human society as no one wants to die and we are all very risk averse.

Very good point about the shorter lifespans of the wildlife, and the fact that natural selection isn’t interfered with when there are undesireable mutations (i.e. the weak die.)

I think mushrooms and their propensity to collect radiation was mentioned 2–3 times, and was something I didn’t know. Lichen, too, although I’m less familiar with it.

Great link about the reindeer, @cazzie, thanks.

The Animals of Chernobyl | The New York Times
50% reduction in diversity in hot areas.

“Seemingly normal animals”. Those 160 people (and I bet the numbers are a lot higher) who returned to the contaminated region are going to be very interesting test cases on the dangers in disregarding nuclear contamination. For those choosing to return, I suppose this is one of those cases where ignorance is bliss. I don’t think I could avoid fixating on the constant wondering over which whiff of inhaled dust has those few cesium atoms guaranteeing my grisly death.

I think the chances are good, @stanleybmanly, that the majority of the 160 are at or beyond retirement age. Beyond childbearing and raising. Like the wild life, their remaining lifespans are probably relatively short. Hard to distinguish before and after causation.

I think those who remained or returned to the Zone of Exclusion are aware of the risks and simply don’t care. As far as I’ve read they’re pretty much all elderly folks who are unwilling to abandon the homes they’ve known their entire lives and live somewhere else.