3 ms·
> Chernobyl's dead zone isn't by any means devoid of life. Is that because of immigration or is it actually capable of sustaining (multi-cellular) life?
by guenthert 6y ago
> Chernobyl's dead zone isn't by any means devoid of life.
Is that because of immigration or is it actually capable of sustaining (multi-cellular) life?
- DoreenMichele 6y agoThe latter: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/060418-ch... I also have heard (from "a reliable source") that one of the best nature preserves in the US is not labeled a nature preserve. It's off limits because it's the area around a nuclear plant. With no people around, other life forms tend to thrive. Humans are lousy stewards of planet earth more often than not.
- bottled_poe 6y agoTurns out the radiation level is less harmful to life than human presence. Who would have guessed.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoIt's absolutely habitable, there were even some people who refused to leave / came back. You are much more likely to get cancer, but it certainly is habitable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaUNhqnpiOE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaUNhqnpiOE
- XorNot 6y agoThis is why I'm skeptical the cobalt bomb would even do it. We'd have huge cancer rates and a drop in life expectancy, and a massive rise in birth defects, but eliminating the human race? Even substantially wiping out society? I'm kind of doubtful. We've kept having babies in conditions objectively far worse for our entire history.