4 ms·

So did you by retorting to a comment about the long term habitability of a region with an argument about short term visits.

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• replygirl 4y ago
  i would be ok living somewhere with constant exposure at 1 uSv. that's half of the 20 mSv/year occupational limit for radiation workers which is way lower than it needs to be
  • dewey 4y ago
    If you have ever watched any urban exploring or tourist guide videos from the Chernobyl area you will notice that they always check for radiation and don't go into certain buildings or areas because radioation is not uniform. There's places where there's almost no radiation, then you walk into a random building and the exposure is too high to stay for a longer time. Not sure that's a place you really want to live in, easy to say from a comfortable chair behind a screen somewhere far away.
    • replygirl 4y ago
      the built environment is obviously a big radiation sink that needs to be demolished and disposed of. no one's saying we should reinhabit pripyat stalinkas. more like reduce the exclusion zone to the area that's actually dangerous, which is the minority of it