GirlChat #718277
|
Okay, I admit I got the ball rolling on this one, but that didn't mean you had to make me regret it! And if San Francisco hadn't been there, the San Francisco earthquake wouldn't have been such a disaster either. A city in the presence of these tectonic plates alone wasn't a problem. Having a nuclear installation there that can destroy great swaths of the environment is, however. The point is that power plants using other sources are generally speaking dirtier throughout their whole lives and so they are bound to affect communities more and for longer. Chernobyl and Fukushima are extreme examples of things that went wrong several times over. Which is why nuclear plants are still not the better alternatives to fossil fuel burning than wind, water, and sunlight. Lolwut? Just because it's a trend to do this now, doesn't mean you have to sink to using it yourself. The Exclusion Zone today has more wild fauna than anywhere else in Europe. And you're arguing exposure to such huge amounts of radiation do not cause radiation sickness and birth defects? It depends on where in the Zone you are in, and how long you stay there. Excerpt: " Despite the growing numbers of tourists, the Zone is still highly toxic and dangerous. The landscape is dotted with warning signs indicating where the “hot spots” are. Walking around is for the most part safe, but the greatest danger comes from ingesting radioactive particles. Nikolai has had to warn visitors against posing for photographs licking trees, eating berries, and rolling around in the earth. He particularly warns against following in the footsteps of “Bionerd23,” who posts videos of herself online fearlessly eating Chernobyl’s apples. Radiation levels in many places are safe, but parts of the Zone, particularly near reactor 4, and in basements of buildings such as Pripyat’s hospital, remain dangerously high. ![]() ![]() |