[dingus]

Reiterating your point, the area is uninhabitable on a timescale of thousands of years. Some estimates are at 20,000 years. The timeline of that region being poisonous extends so far beyond our current history that it's effectively permanent.

There are actual risks of creating permanent dead zones on the map. It shows incredible arrogance and a complete lack of foresight.

What happens when the Chernobyl confinement deteriorates every hundred years or so, and eventually nobody is around to maintain it anymore.

[DuskStar]

> What happens when the Chernobyl confinement deteriorates every hundred years or so, and eventually nobody is around to maintain it anymore.

Well, nothing - because if there aren't people around to maintain it, there also aren't people around for it to affect. Couple that with the fact that the intensity of the radiation will have significantly decreased within a century and that cancer is a more serious concern in longer lived species and I think you'll find the impact on nature from any future leakage to be minimal.

[Circuits]

Yes the impact of nuclear fallout is minimal. Hence why we bury spent fuel miles underground and as far away from people as possible... because its so innocuous.

[DuskStar]

Because everything relating to nuclear waste is a rational decision coming from a carefully evaluated risk-benefit analysis.

(and because cancer is a much more significant danger for humans than for wild animals)