4 ms·

The nature actually thrived because of Chernobyl disaster. Even some endangered species started to rebound without human interference. [1] In Fukushima zone the

by Grue3 7y ago

The nature actually thrived because of Chernobyl disaster. Even some endangered species started to rebound without human interference. [1] In Fukushima zone there's been a significant increase of wild boars [2] [1] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151008-chernobyl-animals-thrive-without-people-science/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151008-chernobyl... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/03/the-wild-boars-of-fukushima/519066/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/03/the-wild-boars-of-...

arrrg 7y ago
Obviously nature thrived there. Areas where people don’t go are like that. It’s not unlike nature reserves. People are a danger to nature. The direct cause is that there are no people around, not that a nuclear disaster happened. The nuclear disaster caused the people to leave, which makes the disaster the indirect cause of nature thriving. It’s not as though the increase in background radiation made nature thrive. The lack of people did that. I’m all in favor of nature reserves, but we do not need nuclear disasters to create them and I don’t think we should let luck pick around which nuclear plant we want a nature reserve. We should put our nature reserves wherever we damn well please. (I’m honestly questioning whether you actually read the article you linked. I will admit, I also didn’t before I wrote the comment. I was surprised to find that it makes essentially the same argument I’m using, down to using the same exact words.)
- Grue3 7y ago
  Ok, so you admit that: 1) increase of background radiation is not harmful to "nature" (usually defined as "all living things, arbitrarily excluding humans"), or at least less harmful than human presence 2) nuclear plants, merely by existing, tend to limit surrounding human population, and in case of accident totally eliminate it 3) the presence of humans is worse for nature than literally the worst nuclear plant accident ever The original argument I was arguing against is "nuclear plants are bad because they're bad for the environment". However all evidence points to nuclear plants being good for the environment. You can't build nature reserves "wherever you damn please" because most habitable areas are already populated by humans. We can however build more nuclear plants, which has a two-pronged effect of reducing carbon emissions and limiting population around them, naturally creating nature hotspots.

by Grue3 7y ago

arrrg 7y ago

Obviously nature thrived there. Areas where people don’t go are like that. It’s not unlike nature reserves. People are a danger to nature. The direct cause is that there are no people around, not that a nuclear disaster happened. The nuclear disaster caused the people to leave, which makes the disaster the indirect cause of nature thriving. It’s not as though the increase in background radiation made nature thrive. The lack of people did that. I’m all in favor of nature reserves, but we do not need nuclear disasters to create them and I don’t think we should let luck pick around which nuclear plant we want a nature reserve. We should put our nature reserves wherever we damn well please. (I’m honestly questioning whether you actually read the article you linked. I will admit, I also didn’t before I wrote the comment. I was surprised to find that it makes essentially the same argument I’m using, down to using the same exact words.)

Grue3 7y ago
Ok, so you admit that: 1) increase of background radiation is not harmful to "nature" (usually defined as "all living things, arbitrarily excluding humans"), or at least less harmful than human presence 2) nuclear plants, merely by existing, tend to limit surrounding human population, and in case of accident totally eliminate it 3) the presence of humans is worse for nature than literally the worst nuclear plant accident ever The original argument I was arguing against is "nuclear plants are bad because they're bad for the environment". However all evidence points to nuclear plants being good for the environment. You can't build nature reserves "wherever you damn please" because most habitable areas are already populated by humans. We can however build more nuclear plants, which has a two-pronged effect of reducing carbon emissions and limiting population around them, naturally creating nature hotspots.