4 ms·
I think the idea is that the massive depopulation caused by what you describe would function as a ‘fix’.
by code_duck 8y ago
I think the idea is that the massive depopulation caused by what you describe would function as a ‘fix’.
- pvaldes 8y agoA fix or an end. It is said that without enough population to watch and repair the current nuclear systems, the problem would quickly scalate in a few years when nuclear plants in the planet would deteriorate, get out of control and explode one after one.
- CalRobert 8y agoThat would be devastating for individual organisms, but what would the large scale ecological impact be? Chernobyl is home to quite a bit of wildlife as I understand it. Also, if we're talking about a world after the exchange of thousands of ICBM's I'm not sure how much relative impact the melting down of the world's nuclear power plants would have. The problem has been considered before, though probably as a general safety issue rather than trying not to further irradiate a barren world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety
- code_duck 8y agoWildlife thrive near Chernobyl because normal human activity is more destructive than that radiological disaster has been.
- pvaldes 8y agoAnd because there is a replacement outside. Chernobil is acting as a sink for some species with individuals inside being killed faster but replaced with immigrants constantly.
- code_duck 8y agoI thought studies said that mortality wasn’t significantly increased, though some deformities were?