3 ms·

In the case of Chernobyl, I would argue that the area is not poisoned "pretty much forever". The effects of radiation on local wildlife is up for debate[0], but

In the case of Chernobyl, I would argue that the area is not poisoned "pretty much forever". The effects of radiation on local wildlife is up for debate[0], but note the fact that mammal population is increasing(cited in [0]). From this I would think that the local wildlife is not worse off than it would be if humans continued living in that area. [0]: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl... EDIT: forgot reference

olavk 8y ago
Of course wildlife is not worse off - anywhere humans leave an inhabited area (ghost towns) you will see it gradually reclaimed by nature. If you want to argue that radiation is healthy for mammals, you would have to compare with a similar unpolluted wildlife area, not with how wildlife fared when the area was a populous industrial city!
legulere 8y ago
Here in Bavaria, over 1500km away, we still today have problems that game and mushrooms are often too much contaminated with radioisotopes to be fit for human consumption.