Did we overreact to Chernobyl?
probablynothing to do with your slop thoughbut the slop generator is correct, why would you even expect that to be a problem
>>16871970Propaganda made it seem like if Chernobyl contamination were to spill it would be the end of the world.
>>16871988Because the spill wouldn't instantly teleport into the oceans, you retard.
>>16871930>Uniformly distributedNice assumption, asshole.
>>16872001With some ingenuity and effort it could be moved there though (or contamination could be dealt with through alternative means - it was just an example) - humans are not passive observers.
Chernobyl is actually not that dangerous of you have proper gear
>>16871930the problem is that isotopes ACCUMULATE through the food chain. yes you can visit chernobyl just fine, but you wouldn't want to live there, drink the water, eat from a garden and hunt in the forest. incidentally, because of that the wildlife is doing amazing. theres large populations of wolf, moose, european bison, beaver, wild horses... turns out human activity is more harmful than a reactor blowing up. some with the bikini atoll. theres no fishing going on there because its all irradiated and no theres large healthy coral reefs and incredibly healthy fish populations
I have published papers on the subject. >>16871930There are multiple UN and IAEA reports that has a global consensus of radiologists and nuclear power experts state that the Soviets literally did overreact to the disaster, shutting down and resettling a lot more settlements then it was necessary, which ended up doing more damage through social factors than the radiation health hazards themselves did. But then again, if they hadn't overreacted, those very same isotopes could end up doing quite a bit more damage to people, and as >>16872087 pointed out, wider exclusion did benefit the environment and natural wildlife tremendously. >>16872087> but you wouldn't want to live there, drink the water, eat from a garden and hunt in the forest. True in the immediate exclusion zone around the plant in the years immediately following the disaster, but even one decade later the overwhelming majority of excluded territories are just straight up indistinguishable from the baseline in terms of radioactive isotope accumulation. There are still pockets where you definitely don't want to drink and eat the local biomass over an extended period of time, but they are extremely minuscule in scale, especially by now.
the fossil fuel industry, one of the wealthiest and most active propaganda producers on the plant, have a vested interest in demonizing alternative energy sources. A lot of effort has been put into making nuclear power look as scary as possible. Three Mile Island is known as the worst nuclear disaster in US history, yet NOBODY died, it was a nothing, but gets hyped up as a warning against the technology. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of US citizens died as a result of fossil fuels this year alone. Chernobyl is another victim of this dedicated propaganda campaign. It was bad, but is way overhyped as some apocalyptic catastrophe.
>>16872940
