3 ms·

If a nuclear power plant blows up, the whole area is going to look for years to come like a scene from a apocalyptic movie Chernobyl is actually a wildlife won

by zizee 14y ago

If a nuclear power plant blows up, the whole area is going to look for years to come like a scene from a apocalyptic movie Chernobyl is actually a wildlife wonderland now people can't live in the area. Animals don't deem to have a problem living in highly radioactive environments. They have more immediate issues than getting cancer. But for humans a nuclear meltdown is bad news. So its not through environment that suffers on the whole, more that it is no longer suitable for humans. But yes, the result of a nuclear disaster is much more dramatic in the short term, making it scarier than the same amount of damage that a coal powerplant dripfeeds.

stevoski 14y ago
Agreed. I visited Chernobyl two years ago, and in all of Europe I've never seen a place so verdant, and teeming with wildlife. The canal especially had many large fish.
- gritzko 14y ago
  Friend of mine studied mice in a nuclear disaster zone. Basically, mice adapted and there was no statistical difference compared to a control population (outside the zone).
DanBC 14y ago
> Chernobyl is actually a wildlife wonderland "Not scientifically justified". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6946210.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6946210.stm) > But scientists who assessed the 1986 disaster's impact on birds said the ecological effects were "considerably greater than previously assumed". (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14250489 http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14250489) > "Many people come here expecting to see a lunar landscape, so when they see trees, and birds and a few mammals, they're surprised. > "They think, 'ah well maybe it's not so bad'. > "But what we're finding is that there is a significant impact on both the population and the biodiversity - the number of species - in the zone. And it's directly proportional to the level of contamination." (But the article mentions that this is a polarised debate, and that this is only one side.) Chernobyl Birds are Small Brained (http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9387000/9387395.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9387000/938...) Insects in decline (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7949314.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7949314.stm)

by zizee 14y ago

stevoski 14y ago

Agreed. I visited Chernobyl two years ago, and in all of Europe I've never seen a place so verdant, and teeming with wildlife. The canal especially had many large fish.

gritzko 14y ago
Friend of mine studied mice in a nuclear disaster zone. Basically, mice adapted and there was no statistical difference compared to a control population (outside the zone).

DanBC 14y ago

> Chernobyl is actually a wildlife wonderland "Not scientifically justified". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6946210.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6946210.stm) > But scientists who assessed the 1986 disaster's impact on birds said the ecological effects were "considerably greater than previously assumed". (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14250489 http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14250489) > "Many people come here expecting to see a lunar landscape, so when they see trees, and birds and a few mammals, they're surprised. > "They think, 'ah well maybe it's not so bad'. > "But what we're finding is that there is a significant impact on both the population and the biodiversity - the number of species - in the zone. And it's directly proportional to the level of contamination." (But the article mentions that this is a polarised debate, and that this is only one side.) Chernobyl Birds are Small Brained (http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9387000/9387395.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9387000/938...) Insects in decline (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7949314.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7949314.stm)