Very good, this is a great step, but just a thing to be remembered: hydroelectric energy is renewable, better than coal, oil, etc, but it still kills a lots of animals and flood great areas, disappearing with waterfalls and changing landscapes.
While a minor but noticeable uptick in radiation-induced cancer is unacceptable for humans, animals don't especially seem to mind. The areas around Chernobyl have become a superb wildlife reserve, and Fukushima is probably on its way to a similar state. Compared to the area submerged by a dam -- where the habitat is, without hyperbole, utterly and completely annihilated -- I have difficulty seeing how you can prefer that.
They do mind, they mind a lot, it's just that for the vast majority of wildlife humans (land alterations, activity and presence byproduct) have an even larger effect than a touch of long-term radiation-induced lethal disease.
I think the point was more that nature seemed to adapt very quickly to the fallout from Chernobyl. Instead of a nuclear wasteland it's a pretty thriving ecosystem with a lot of new life, and even large mammals seem to be doing just fine.
I caught a documentary while on a transatlantic flight about the Wolves of Chernobyl [1], and it discusses how the wildlife seems to be thriving with few to no ill effects.
This isn't me suggesting that irradiating the land with nuclear waste is good - far from it. But it does seem that nature is pretty resilient to it.
Wildlife does thrive in the exclusion zone, but again that's not because wildlife is somehow immune to radiations[0] it's because radiation-induced morbidity is lower than humanity-induced morbidity.
[0] they're not, though r-strategist will tend to be pretty resilient
Well, no, I agree, and I don't think I suggested that at all.
In fact, though you said it much more intelligently with terminology I was unaware of, I was more suggesting that nature is more resilient in the face of nuclear waste/damage than one might expect, and I think that's what the parent is suggesting as well.
No more, no less. We should still be very cautious because there is undoubtedly a limit (perhaps even known?) as to how much punishment an environment can take. But Chernobyl's ecosystem does seem to show that when you take humans out of the equation, Nature can be pretty darn tough.
>I was more suggesting that nature is more resilient in the face of nuclear waste/damage than one might expect
you're talking about the whole nature instead of the individuals. Place a bunch of humans near Chernobyl for several generations (30 years for wolves would be like 200 years for humans) and enforce the rule of quickly killing off any ill individual - natural thing in nature - and 200 years later you'll have a thriving human population there, and some alien would naturally conclude that humans "is more resilient in the face of nuclear waste/damage than one might expect".
They are inhabitable zones for humans now and have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (including humans themselves) by beginning to use atomic energy.
I'm guessing you mean uninhabitable (as in "humans can't live there").
That seems to be an excellent way to preserve the landscape.
> have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms.
Which, if the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is any indication, is significantly lower than the effect humans have on most of these organisms.
> I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (including humans themselves) by beginning to use atomic energy.
Whereas I think humanity has done harm to just about everything by beginning to use fossil energy, and much larger civilian application of atomic energy would have been a significant improvement at pretty much all levels, including (and possibly especially because of, though they've really been much too rare for that) the odd nuclear accident.
Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me.
I still have to grasp it. So Costa Rica is living on renewable energy now, strongly reducing any harm on any living beings, and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right?
> Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me.
One doesn't need to hate humanity to recognize humans as the apex predator and being really really really really high on the list of causes for habitat destruction and stock depletion for a number of species, and the value of nature preserves and other low/no human zones for helping reduce the harm of such things.
> and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it
You could read it that way, but I think that's likely an inaccurate reading and can't recommend it.
Renewables and nukes both have their drawbacks. Ignoring them isn't productive. Overstating them is also not productive. Trying to correct such perceived mistakes doesn't mean anyone likes or dislikes either.
In-context, hydro isn't available everywhere, and I'd rather see some of the safer nuke tech than coal - but Fukushima seems to be heading towards more coal instead. Perhaps you think that's better?
If you do, you either think the harms of nuclear tech much greater than I do, or the harms of coal much fewer. If you don't think that's better, perhaps you can see why others would wish to encourage the fair treatment of nuclear power.
It's not hatred for humanity; it's objectively looking at the data.
For example, with comparative similar power output, wind power plants will kill way more birds, than Chernobyl did. And that's just at the power generation/operation stage. It's impossible to argue that it will reduce harm to any living being; some "green" power generation techniques increase the harm to them.
> Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me.
Now what are you talking about?
> you don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right?
You know you don't have to make stuff up right? I haven't given any opinion on the Costa Rican situation, I have only replied to your inane comments on nuclear energy.
Not really. They're uninhabitable only because of not-always-rational fear of radiation. People were fleeing from Japan because of Fukushima, and when doing so some of my countrymen returned here, where the natural background radiation is higher than in the affected area they ran away from.
When coming here, they went to an airplane which was high up in the sky and momentarily gave them an even higher dose of radiation.
Fukushima exclusion zone is a social phenomenon created by human fear, not physiological created by radiation.
If you think that, then of course the responsible thing to do is explore the issue with repeatable experiment and research to determine whether your thoughts reflect reality.
