It made me wonder if this is what European waterways were generally like before us humans fished and fished and fished and polluted the Rhine, Danube, Volga, Dnieper, and other major European rivers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Białowieża_Forest

"Biomass overgrowth of lakes and annual blue-green algae bloom as a result of eutrophication has reduced the overall use of water resources as seen from a point of recreational and leisure use. Also fish stocks have changed so that less valuable fish dominate at the cost of valuable fish like salmon and trout. Selective fishing is an effective way to reduce the overgrowth of less valuable fish populations and at the same time reduce eutrophication of water bodies." http://www.hoitokalastus.com/hoitokalastus_en.html

I.e. they require certain amount of fishing to remain useful in that regard.

Some old reports:

Wildlife preserve not scientifically justified (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6946210.stm)

Significant impact on biodiversity and population numbers (but also that this is a polarised debate) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14250489)

Chernobyl birds have small brains (http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9387000/938...)

Insect decline (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7949314.stm)

So at relatively high levels of radiation you could well see that individual organisms tend to do well enough but have children with more birth defects, are more frail, have their vision deteriorate faster, etc.

I'm not sure that the radiation levels even in the Chernobyl exclusion zone are high enough for that, necessarily, but there's unfortunately a pretty wide gulf between "no effect" and developing cancer.

Not only that but when an animal has a shorter life-span due to radiation where do the effects show up? Its not showing in the population increase as the dying happens after the animal has given its maximum number of offspring as the study is studying long-term radiation effects from long-term radiation.

But no, they don't glow, quite the opposite (they absorb a wide range of electromagnetic frequencies to its internal use).

I like thinking about those natural anomalies that you know some brilliant mind will attempt to mimic with technology, and that is one function that could have serious potential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus

It's an interesting thought that our future Buzz Aldrins and Neil Armstrongs may be sustained by a diet of radioactive mushrooms. That sounds like a Marvel origin story.

[x] The funguses inside Chernovil are surely radioactive because they also absorb the water that is contaminated with radioactive elements. Don't eat them :).

  "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."

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.T.A.L.K.E.R.:_Shadow_of_Chern...

>The prevailing scientific view of the exclusion zone has become that it is an unintentional wildlife sanctuary. This conclusion rests on the premise that radiation is less harmful to wildlife populations than we are.

I don't consider myself an environmentally focused person, but the effects humans have on the ecosystem cannot be overstated. I'm not saying the effects are negative or positive, just that we as a species need to be very cognizant of the changes we cause, and we need to think critically about what ramifications those changes have.

Edit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/06/wildlife-h...

'Being horrified' is not a credible threat to survival.

In fact, in both cases the affected individuals of any species will die and the rest will go on.

  In 2009, there were 31 countries reported in which at least 10% of children under five died.

  In 2011, the world average was 51 (5.1%), down from 87 (8.7%) in 1990.