3 ms·
It’s easy to create such zones. We’ve made such zones before. Simply irradiate a large area of land with nuclear radiation and it will be untouched by humans fo
by xwdv 4y ago
It’s easy to create such zones. We’ve made such zones before. Simply irradiate a large area of land with nuclear radiation and it will be untouched by humans for hundreds or even thousands of years. I imagine this could be a plot for some eco-terrorism thriller novel.
- worthless-trash 4y agoDoesn't radiating it, end up hurting the creatures that live there ? Essentially mitigating the original reason for doing so ?
- imtringued 4y agoHumans are more dangerous than radiation.
- xwdv 4y agoNot really. They seem fine.
- yencabulator 4y agoChernobyl has lots of wildlife, but the animals aren't healthy. Lack of humans good, radioactivity bad. > Their surveys showed that certain bird species tended to have more genetic mutations, smaller brains and less viable sperm in sites with higher radiation levels. And in 2007, they counted 66 percent fewer birds — and 50 percent fewer bird species — in highly radioactive places compared to background-level sites. > In dozens of studies, the pair also documented that, with higher radiation levels, there were significantly lower numbers of soil invertebrates and a lower abundance of certain insect species and such mammals as hares and foxes. Working with collaborators in Finland, they also documented a range of health effects in bank voles. https://knowablemagazine.org/article/food-environment/2022/scientists-cant-agree-about-chernobyls-impact-wildlife https://knowablemagazine.org/article/food-environment/2022/s...