4 ms·
> I'm suggesting the 5,000km^2 that currently exists as barren nuclear wasteland Aren't you exaggerating by quite a bit?
by beebeepka 3y ago
> I'm suggesting the 5,000km^2 that currently exists as barren nuclear wasteland
Aren't you exaggerating by quite a bit?
- renewiltord 3y agoIt appears it's not far from the truth. According to https://www.britannica.com/story/nuclear-exclusion-zones https://www.britannica.com/story/nuclear-exclusion-zones it's 4100 sq.km. for Chernobyl and 371 sq.km. for Fukushima (800 sq.km. at peak) which isn't an exaggeration. Interesting.
- beebeepka 3y agoi guess we think of different things when we read "barren nuclear wasteland".
- renewiltord 3y agoI see. You weren't saying the size was exaggerated. You were saying that the unusable land was being exaggeratedly described as "barren nuclear wasteland". It's unusable land, so it is nuclear wasteland, but it isn't barren AFAIK.