I've just published a short article at Arcadia, an online journal at the Environment and Society Portal of the Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society, a joint initiative of LMU Munich and the Deutsches Museum.
The article examines the discourse around large mammals being seen in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ), especially in the heavily contaminated Red Forest area.
When the mammals are wolves, foxes, or other non-human animals, invariably the discourse is foregrounding the "recovery" of nature. However, when the mammals are humans, in this case Russian soldiers made to camp and eat in trenches in the Red Forest of the CEZ, the discourse is catastrophic and warns of their imminent illness and death.
What is the difference? Why are four legs good, and two legs bad? Read here to learn more.