A fungus that eats deadly radiation at Chernobyl?
Nuclear power continues to be falsely portrayed as “green energy” because it produces low carbon emissions during operation. What is usually ignored is the fact that the nuclear waste, known as “spent” nuclear fuel is deadly for tens of thousands of years — far longer, in fact, than earth’s oldest civilizations.
Way back in the 1980s, my dear friend and mentor, Richard F. Quinn, became fascinated by reports that there was “something alive and growing inside the failed Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Together we joked about the possibility of radioactive monsters like Godzilla emerging from the ruins.
So far, Chernobyl has not birthed monsters, but it has spawned a fungus that actually eats radiation. The fungus, which may someday prove to be useful, was discovered by microbiologist Nelli Zhdanova of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences while he conducted a field survey in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.
What Mr. Zhdanova found was a thriving community of fungi, documenting an astonishing 37 species. Nearly all of the fungi were either dark-hued or black because they were rich with the pigment melanin, which is believed to help thwart the harmful effects of radiation exposure.
The fungi have amazed scientists because of their ability to grow in conditions that are lethal to most life forms. Some scientists believe this may be linked to the way these organisms interact with radiation at a cellular level. The hope is that somehow, on of these fungi could somehow devour nuclear waste and make the world safer for humans and other life forms.
However, surviving radiation is very different from neutralizing nuclear waste. Scientific discoveries often take on a life of their own once they leave the lab. In this case, early-stage research was being framed as a potential solution to nuclear waste.
The evidence shows it was a false solution.
Plants can change sunlight (a form of radiation) into edible vegetables, but there is no evidence that the Chernobyl fungi can safely process, reduce, or eliminate the massive quantities of radioactive material produced by nuclear reactors. Even under ideal conditions, scaling such a process to match global waste levels would present enormous technical and environmental challenges.
Yet the idea itself has fueled a pernicious attempt to reshape how the public feels about nuclear energy.
The push to rebrand nuclear energy as “green energy”
Nuclear energy is not “green,” yet support for it has grown in recent years, with its champions claiming that it must be a necessary component of a low-carbon future. Chief among these often bellicose voices is Donald Trump, who has openly promoted nuclear power as part of a “green” energy strategy.
That argument focuses almost entirely on emissions, while sidestepping the horrific long-term consequences of nuclear waste.
Highlighting developments like radiation-resistant fungi can reinforce the idea that science is closing the gap—that solutions are emerging, even if they are not fully realized. But that impression can be misleading.
If the goal is to transition toward sustainable energy, the conversation should be centered on systems that do not create long-term environmental liabilities.
Solar and wind technologies are already capable of generating large amounts of clean energy. Their primary limitation is not production, but storage. Without reliable ways to store energy, consistency becomes a challenge.
Energy storage can make nuclear obsolete.
Advances in energy storage will solve the problem of intermittent renewable sources, making them more dependable and scalable. Unlike nuclear waste, energy storage systems can be improved, replaced, and upgraded over time without leaving a permanently radioactive mess behind.
The discovery of fungi that can tolerate radiation is a reminder of how adaptable life can be under extreme conditions, but it is not a solution to the eternally deadly problem of nuclear waste.