Genuinely curious, what was the argument? Because, like, as far as the environment was concerned, Chernobyl was a net benefit.
radiation is obviously no bueno
The argument that was put forth was that the lack of human activity allowed populations to rebound and for animals to engage in more natural behavior. The conversation we ended up having was exploring what's important to look at. Overall population growth? Animal activity? The health of individual animals? One of the really interesting questions asked was, if animals in the wild tend to have shorter life spans than their counterparts in captivity (due to threats of injury and illness, trouble finding food, etc.) how much should radiation be considered an issue if animals might die of other causes before radiation poisoning and cancer ever set in? Mind you, my friend and I aren't scientists and we were just shooting the breeze, so we were more exploring questions and ideas than hard data. That said, actual researchers are looking into these things. I wouldn't be surprised if the answer in the end is "Well, it's a bit of a mixed bag." It has been 30 years since the world's worst nuclear accident, yet it is still not clear how badly the local wildlife has been affected by the radiation
Woahh that's wild. I never thought about it from that perspective. It's a bit scary to think that an area that we consider "damaged beyond repair" could actually provide an ecosystem that's in better shape than the animals' current home. That third article is fascinating!!!
I was once told by a very wonderful person that life will do everything in its power to go on living and that we should take comfort in that, but we should never forget that its our responsibility to do what we can to ensure the life lived is worth living. If you think the third article is interesting, you should look into Bioremediation techniques for repairing radioactive damage. I read about this stuff from time to time because I'm genuinely worried about certain groups in the green movement promoting Nuclear Energy as a reasonable means of reducing our carbon footprint. I'll save you from my spiel, but sufficed to say I heartily disagree and if you ever asked her, Dala will tell you I am not a fan of nuclear energy in the slightest and if given the opportunity, I'll rant for a good while against it.It's a bit scary to think that an area that we consider "damaged beyond repair" could actually provide an ecosystem that's in better shape than the animals' current home.
No doubt applewood will elaborate and drop better resources, but what surprised me was how local populations of wolves and their prey skyrocketed in nearby areas. Wildlife is thriving there, oddly.