3 ms·
Not to mention, the rebound in local wildlife in Chernobyl, due to the simple fact that it's an exclusion zone for humans, show that nuclear accidents are bad f
by titzer 9y ago
Not to mention, the rebound in local wildlife in Chernobyl, due to the simple fact that it's an exclusion zone for humans, show that nuclear accidents are bad for people, but, in the long run, great for wildlife.
The picture isn't all roses, of course, but this article is pretty interesting: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclus...
- olavk 9y agoWell if you wanted to turn an inhabited area into wildlife you could do it by forcibly removing people without having to build and explode a nuclear reactor first. So I don't find this a very convincing argument in favor of the benefit of nuclear accidents.
- titzer 9y agoHungry people will go anywhere to get food. Always have, since the dawn of man. Hunters would love to go in and bag a deer, some rabids, anything else. Sadly, the only way to keep them out is if they are scared to death. I won't say "bring on the nuclear accidents", but holy cow, look at what they tell us about ourselves.
- zeth___ 9y agoWhat I'm seeing here isn't that radiation is harmless, but that radiation is less harmful than humans, which is no great surprise considering we kill wolves in a few minutes with guns, but radiation can take up to half the lifespan of a wolf to do the same.