4 ms·
To be fair, this area will have the exact same problem that regions with radiation problems have. Nature will reclaim the area but it won't be "healthy" nature.
by jacoblambda 6y ago
To be fair, this area will have the exact same problem that regions with radiation problems have. Nature will reclaim the area but it won't be "healthy" nature. The animals will have increased health problems due to toxins (or radiation) from the environment.
The only reason ecosystems rebound in areas where there are radiation problems is because nobody is there to hunt or deter them. Had there not been the city Chernobyl, nature would be far better off. The same goes for this landfill. Had it not been created, the area would be far healthier.
- aaron695 6y ago> The animals will have increased health problems due to toxins (or radiation) from the environment. No. This isn't correct. The problem with these areas is the might increase cancer a small amount. Animals don't care about cancer or toxins, it's only rich present day humans that do. Hunter and Gathers living at Chernobyl wouldn't care at all as long as they don't go in the building. This is the biblical fear that's the problem. Yes, as an ultra rich person I would not live on this landfill, but even for at least 40% of humans in the current world they'd be better off living on the landfill. If you care about the environment, create more rubbish, the more landfill, the more oasis's of green the environment gets.
- imtringued 6y agoThat makes no sense. It's cheaper to declare an area to not be settled by humans than to destroy it and then declare the area to not be settled.
- aaron695 6y agoBut they don't do they? Environmentalist doomed us to global warming from religious fear of nuclear energy, yet the one main accident created - "the area is essentially one of Europe's largest nature preserves." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone