3 ms·
I hope you realize how bad of a comparison that is. If a dam would break and flood some area it would kill people but after a year the chaos will be cleaned up
by dewey 5y ago
I hope you realize how bad of a comparison that is. If a dam would break and flood some area it would kill people but after a year the chaos will be cleaned up and things will be back to normal.
If the same thing happens to a nuclear power plant the area can't be lived in for millions of years.
- eru 5y ago> If the same thing happens to a nuclear power plant the area can't be lived in for millions of years. Some people have been squatting in the Chernobyl exclusion zone for decades now, and are still alive. See eg https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/17/chernobyl-30-anniversary-babushka-ukraine/82887336/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/17/chernob... I wouldn't want to live there myself, and cancer levels might be slightly higher than normal.
- dewey 5y agoLiving secluded in a big exclusion zone with ~180 other people, no stores or infrastructure and higher levels of cancer is definitely something we should strive for.
- eru 5y agoThe lack of stores and infrastructure comes from lack of other people, which could be fixed. I'm not sure if there is a higher level of cancer. But I grant you that we can assume that. It's not pretty, but it's also not something that prevents people from living. Remember when everyone used to voluntarily increase their risk of lung cancer by crazy amounts? Back when everyone smoked? Civilization still persisted.
- c1ccccc1 5y agoActually, the estimates for when the region will be habitable range from 3 centuries to 20 000 years. [1] "Millions" is off by several orders of magnitude. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Exclusion_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Exclusion_z...