ARTICLE IN PRESS
Biol. Lett.
radiation and frequency of abnormalities (A.P. Møller
doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0528 Q2 et al., unpublished data), suggest parsimoniously that
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64

all species are affected by the same factor, most likely
by radiation.
Finally, Smith suggested, based on two-pagereports that animal populations are thriving in CherInvited reply
nobyl (e.g. Baker & Chesser 2000). These reports
provide anecdotal evidence with no information on
methods or empirical findings. Although animals andplants can be censused using standard, rigorous
methodology (e.g. Bibby et al. 2005), surprisingly, thefirst large-scale censuses of any living organism wereconducted by us during 2006–2007, 20 years after theAlthough Chernobyl is perhaps the largest
disaster, showing reduced population densities of mostenvironmental disaster ever, there has been minimal
species of birds in contaminated areas (Møller &monitoring of the status of free-living organisms orMousseau 2007a,b). If we classify species as farmland
humans in stark contrast to Hiroshima and Naga- Q3 and otherwise, we find no evidence for farmland
saki, where careful monitoring has continued forspecies having different slopes between abundanceover 60 years. Public health issues are traditionallyand radiation when compared with other species
evaluated using stringent meta-analysis methodology(F1,78Z0.0003, pZ0.99), providing no support forto assess whether there is support for conclusions
Smith’s suggestion.
and to identify sources of heterogeneity. Surprisingly,
Why has there been no concerted effort to monitor
recent inter-governmental reports on the status of
the long-term effects of Chernobyl on free-living
Chernobyl did not use exhaustive quantitative assessorganisms and humans? The official reports by IAEA,
ment of available evidence (Chernobyl Forum 2005;
WHO and UNDP were narrative renditions of parts
EGE 2005). The conclusion that Chernobyl is aof the literature, and these reports, with Smith as
thriving ecosystem was widely cited in the popular
co-author, concluded that Chernobyl was a thrivingpress without even mentioning this methodologicalecosystem with increasing populations of animals
deficiency (e.g. Rosenthal 2005). We conducted(Chernobyl Forum 2005; EGE 2005), despite no
extensive long-term field studies of animals andcensus data existing. Scientific enquiry depends onplants in Ukraine since 1991, in an attempt torigorous analysis of data rather than rendition ofquantify effects.
anecdotal evidence.
Smith (in press) raised questions about ourprocedures for assessing the frequency of abnormalA. P. Møller1,2,3,4,*, T. A. Mousseau1,2,3,4,ities in barn swallows, Hirundo rustica, at Chernobyl
Q1
F. de Lope1,2,3,4, N. Saino1,2,3,4(Møller et al. 2007). We used precise, stringent and1
Laboratoire de Parasitologie Evolutive,
well-established protocols ( Møller et al. 2006),
CNRS UMR 7103, Université Pierre et Marie Curie,following colonies throughout the study, although
Case 237, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France
natural meta-population dynamics result in some2
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Southcolonies being abandoned and others recolonized. We
Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
reported only overall frequencies of abnormalities
3
Departamento
de Biologı́a Animal, Universidad deowing to space limitations. If we use frequency ofExtremadura,
Avenida de Elvas s/n,abnormalities per site as the dependent variable in a06071
Badajoz, Spain
generalized linear model with log-transformed back4
Dipartimento
diBiologia,
Università
degli Studi diground radiation and sampling year as predictors,
Milano,via
Celoria
26,20133
Milano,Italy
we find a strong effect of radiation (F1,23Z23.22,
2*amoller@snv.jussieu.fr
r Z0.50, p!0.0001, slope (s.e.)Z0.294 (0.061)),
with a similar effect for partial albinism alone. Thus,
our previous conclusion is upheld.
Smith also suggested habitat effects on abnormalities, although the underlying mechanism remains
Baker, R. J. & Chesser, R. K. 2000 The Chornobyl nuclear
obscure. Barn swallows commonly breed in sites withdisaster and subsequent creation of a wildlife preserve.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19, 1231–1232. (doi:10.1897/
no animal farming or human habitation, and this1551-5028(2000)019!1231:TCNDASO2.3.CO;2)
ancestral habitat readily allows for successful reproBibby, C. J., Hill, D. A., Burgess, N. D. & Mustoe, S. 2005
duction and survival. We have studied the effects ofBird census techniques. London, UK: Academic Press.
farmland practice on barn swallows (Møller 2001),
Chernobyl
Forum 2005 Chernobyl: the true scale of thebut have found no abnormalities similar to those
accident.
NewYork, NY: IAEA, WHO, UNDP.
reported in Chernobyl (Møller et al. 2007), nor are
EGE 2005 Environmental consequences of the Chernobyl
such abnormalities reported in the literature. Likeaccident and their remediation: twenty years of experience.
wise, levels of non-breeding documented for female
New York, NY: IAEA, WHO, UNDP.
barn swallows in the Chernobyl region (Møller et al.
Møller, A. P. 2001 The effect of dairy farming on barn2005) are so extreme that nothing similar has beenswallow Hirundo rustica abundance, distribution andreported elsewhere in any passerine bird. Additional
reproduction. J. Appl. Ecol. 38, 378–389. (doi:10.1046/
data on abnormalities in black redstart, Phoenicurusj.1365-2664.2001.00593.x)
ochruros, and house sparrow, Passer domesticus, showMøller, A. P. & Mousseau, T. A. 2007a Determinantsof interspecific variation in population declines ofing positive relationships between background
Evolutionary biology

Anecdotes and empiricalresearch in Chernobyl

Received 22 October 2007
Accepted 2 November 2007
RSBL 20070528—10/11/2007—09:57—SHYLAJA—287023—XML – pp. 1–3

1This journal is q 2007 The Royal Society65666768
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192

A. P. Møller et al.

Invited reply. Research in Chernobyl

birds from exposure to radiation at Chernobyl.
Møller, A. P. et al. 2006 An analysis of continent-wide
patterns of sexual selection in a passerine bird. Evolution
J. Appl. Ecol. 44, 909–919. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.
60, 856–868.
2007.01353.x)
Møller, A. P., Mousseau, T. A., de Lope, F. & Saino, N.
Møller, A. P. & Mousseau, T. A. 2007b Species richness
2007 Elevated frequency of abnormalities in barn swaland abundance of birds in relation to radiation atlows from Chernobyl. Biol. Lett. 3, 414–417. (doi:10.
Chernobyl. Biol. Lett. 3, 483–486. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.
1098/rsbl.2007.0136)
2007.0226)
Rosenthal, E. 2005 Chernobyl’s dangers called far exaggerMøller, A. P., Mousseau, T. A., Milinevsky, G., Peklo, A.,
ated. In Int. Herald Tribune 6 September.
Pysanets, E. & Szép, T. 2005 Condition, reproduction
and survival of barn swallows from Chernobyl. J. Anim. Q4 Smith, J. T. In press. Is Chernobyl radiation really causing
negative individual and population-level effects on barn
Ecol. 74, 1102–1111. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.
swallows. Biol. Lett.
01009.x)

Biol. Lett.
RSBL 20070528—10/11/2007—09:57—SHYLAJA—287023—XML – pp. 1–3

193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256