3 ms·
>in fact, for example, wildlife around Chernobyl has flourished This can't be serious...
by bondarchuk 3y ago
>in fact, for example, wildlife around Chernobyl has flourished
This can't be serious...
- altairTF 3y agoWhy not? Take a look at this https://thebiologist.rsb.org.uk/biologist-features/out-of-the-ashes https://thebiologist.rsb.org.uk/biologist-features/out-of-th... https://www.science.org/content/article/humans-are-worse-radiation-chernobyl-animals-study-finds https://www.science.org/content/article/humans-are-worse-rad...
- bondarchuk 3y agoWell, I believe the factual content of what you said, I'm just surprised you'd seriously use this as an argument in favour of nuclear power, because the fact that wildlife thrived is so intimately connected with the fact that a nuclear meltdown happened.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- roenxi 3y agoIf radiation in the exclusion zone causes less damage than human habitation, what is the argument for maintaining the exclusion zone? Bearing in mind that coal plants have a lot of negative health effects, so there needs to be an argument that life in the exclusion zone would be detectable worse than life near a coal plant.
- grecy 3y agoIs it the kind of wildlife we want to be reproducing? Is it the kind of wildlife you want as a pet? Is it the kind of wildlife you want to eat? No, this is not actually a good thing.
- djur 3y agoBy definition you don't want wildlife as a pet. Is there a reason you think this is the "wrong" type of wildlife?
- kagakuninja 3y agoChernobyl is an example of what Bruce Sterling calls an "involuntary wildlife preserve". He didn't claim that was a good thing, of course...