4 ms·
Well, no, I agree, and I don't think I suggested that at all. In fact, though you said it much more intelligently with terminology I was unaware of, I was more
by csydas 10y ago
Well, no, I agree, and I don't think I suggested that at all.
In fact, though you said it much more intelligently with terminology I was unaware of, I was more suggesting that nature is more resilient in the face of nuclear waste/damage than one might expect, and I think that's what the parent is suggesting as well.
No more, no less. We should still be very cautious because there is undoubtedly a limit (perhaps even known?) as to how much punishment an environment can take. But Chernobyl's ecosystem does seem to show that when you take humans out of the equation, Nature can be pretty darn tough.
- trhway 10y ago>I was more suggesting that nature is more resilient in the face of nuclear waste/damage than one might expect you're talking about the whole nature instead of the individuals. Place a bunch of humans near Chernobyl for several generations (30 years for wolves would be like 200 years for humans) and enforce the rule of quickly killing off any ill individual - natural thing in nature - and 200 years later you'll have a thriving human population there, and some alien would naturally conclude that humans "is more resilient in the face of nuclear waste/damage than one might expect".