What about the animal population that seems to have adapted enough to resist the current radioactivity levels (source: some BBC documentary IIRC). I found it fascinating.
I take it you didn't read the Smithsonian article? The second paragraph says:
> Birds around Chernobyl have significantly smaller brains that those living in non-radiation poisoned areas; trees there grow slower; and fewer spiders and insects—including bees, butterflies and grasshoppers—live there.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disast... , which also points out that "[s]ome plants and animals have been able to adapt to the increased radiation levels present in and around Chernobyl", but then only lists the Arabidopsis plant.
There is more animal diversity there now than before, but that can also be attributed to it being more like a wildlife sanctuary.
I read it (without skimming even). But allow me to be surprised that, considering what I remember about human populations impact (heavy and deadly mutations in children), even with reduced organs, there are living animals near the site.
This is likely because your baseline is not a wildlife sanctuary. You are comparing the animal life in populated, pre-accident Chernobyl with farms and agriculture, to depopulated, post-accident Chernobyl with little additional human impact.
> Those studies found mammal diversity and abundance equal to that of a protected nature reserve, with rare species including bears, lynx, river otter, and badger as well as introduced herds of European bison and Przewalski’s horses. Bird diversity is even richer and includes 61 rare species. Whooper swans—never before reported in the region—now appear regularly.
It points out that animal counts isn't the same as animal health, and it suggests that a reason we don't see those animals born with 'heavy and deadly mutations' is because they are quickly eaten by other animals.
